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

[T. Foster]

Personally, I removed xp for gp altogether. To make up the difference, I doubled the monster xp. Unfortunately, I didn't really examine just how much xp was expected to come of gp. It wasn't until I started doing this data research that I realized just how much I slowed down level advancement in my AD&D1 game. For removing the xp for gp rule, I should have not just doubled monster xp, but probably quadrupled or quintupled the monster xp.

It's stated explicitly in the Moldvay-edit Basic Set (1981), and probably in the Mentzer-edit Basic Set (1983) as well that characters should receive approx. 80% of their XP from treasure and only 20% from monsters. That's B/E D&D, but I'd imagine the same ratio holds true in AD&D1 as well (especially since AD&D1 gives XP for magic items, while B/E D&D doesn't).

 

[MerricB]

First, it is my understanding that the xp would only stop one point short of the *second* level, not at the absolute bottom of the immediate next level. So, in your example, the character would go up to 3,000 (1 short of the amount [3,001] needed for 3rd level). [It was a common D&D gag to talk about killing a rat back at the inn after the adventure so you could get that 1 more xp needed to level again.]

Just a few notes:

In the Basic (Moldvay) D&D edition I learnt from (and this would have been retained by Mentzer), XP would stop 1 point short of the gaining of the 2nd level. This is explicitly stated in the text. There was no adjustment of XP for difficulty of the challenge.

In AD&D, once you reached enough XP for the next level - but had not gained it - you would stop gaining XP entirely until you trained for your next level. Note, that as awards were given after each expedition, it was theoretically possible to gain two levels at once (for a particularly goodly amount of XP).

Also in AD&D, the XP for monsters was reduced if the party overpowered them (3 orcs vs 6 level 1 PCs would award 1/2 XP for the orcs), with calculations based on HD vs Level, with additional HD bonuses available for each special ability the monsters had.

XP for Gold awards in AD&D were likewise reduced - using a different formula, IIRC - based on the difficulty of the fight. (The reduced gold award is, in fact, explicitly stated in the end notes of Tomb of Horrors - 1 XP per 2 GP recovered). Interestingly, if 4 1st level characters defeated an owlbear and recovered 1,000 GP, they'd get a 1:1 ratio, the same as if the same characters found 100,000 GP! Only the difficulty of the fight counted.

In actual play of AD&D, training and reduced XP costs were often ignored. (I never saw them used in the games I participated in). The example of T.Foster's group actually using them was probably not uncommon, but I didn't see it in my experiences.

It should be noted that 3e actually cleaves closer to the AD&D example with its CR/XP system!

That there is a big difference in the gaining of levels after 10th level in 1e and 3e is given; it is the major divergence between the systems. (In fact, AD&D is definitely designed for PCs to retire once they reach "name" level, as demi-humans become non-performers at the highest levels).

Cheers!

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've ran 2e and 3e campaigns from 1st - 20th level using standard, by-the-book rules. Checking my game notes, I'd say both took about 270 hours of gaming to complete using homebrewed settings with 2-3 shrink-wrapped modules of "GM Lazy" in each.

I don't think I've been displeased by any edition's leveling. The contrast has been more with other systems, like CP2020, where advancement is painfully slow and character death is likely before any noticeable improvement.

 

[Melan]

In actual play of AD&D, training and reduced XP costs were often ignored. (I never saw them used in the games I participated in). The example of T.Foster's group actually using them was probably not uncommon, but I didn't see it in my experiences.

I have never seen this rule used, either. I didn't even know it existed until someone told me where to look.

 

[Quasqueton]

First: I checked my AD&D1 DMG, and indeed, a PC should stop gaining xp immediately at gaining the minimum for the next level. It is actually typed in all caps, but at the very end of the 2.5 pages of xp info (and you remember the density of the DMG’s text I was remembering the rule from the BD&D rules, that xp stops just short of the second level.

Personally, I never knew anyone who used this rule -- I wouldn’t use it today, either. But then I also still wouldn’t use the training rules either. Such rules in AD&D1 really just made xp and leveling logistics too tedious and aggravating.

The thief says, “Hey, everyone, let’s take a break from adventuring for a few weeks so I can train up to my new level.”

The magic-user says, “No way, I’m not even half way to my next level yet.”

The fighter says, “If we take a break now, the BBEG will just pack up and leave his lair; we’ll never finish this adventure if we wait for you to train up.”

The cleric says, “Just suck it up. We’ll all take a break after finishing this, and we’ll all level up together.”

The paladin says, “Besides, you don’t have enough gold yet to pay for your training.”

The thief says, “Crap. A fat lot of good it does me to have low xp requirements for each level. I might as well be playing a barbarian.”

I wonder if you factored in the wasted XP from the moathouse and had the characters start the temple proper at level 2 (except for the thief at level 3) if that might not put the party right about where I would expect them to be (level 6-7).

No offense intended, but I’m not going to massage the data to get it to show what you expect it to show, or to reflect your personal experiences with the adventures. We have no evidence that your personal expectations or experience is the norm or intention for the adventures. You can consider the levels calculated with the data to be the maximum potential of these adventures.

On the topic of "efficiency" is there a general assumption in D&D3 that a party will kill every possible bad guy and collect every possible piece of treasure in an adventure? Because this certainly isn't the case in AD&D1 (or at least most AD&D1 modules) -- there are red herring encounters designed to waste resources that wise players will try to avoid*, there are 'treasures' that do the same (a party that loads themselves down to the 3" move class trying to glean every last copper and silver piece is setting themselves up to be waylaid by wandering monsters on their way back to the surface), plus 'easter egg' treasures that only the luckiest or most thorough (which, again, is a trade-off -- the longer you spend searching for hidden treasure the more wandering monsters you'll face) parties will ever find. Given all this, 75% efficiency of monsters slain and treasure recovered is probably about the best that can be expected, and the other 25% is just there to tempt the greedy or incautious into overreaching...

There is no “efficiency” assumption in any edition of this game (with regards to “clearing out” a dungeon).

There are many variables in all these adventures that can result in different end levels, treasure, and magic for the PCs. In the Moathouse, if the PCs fight their way past the six 1st-level fighters and one 2nd-level fighter, and then have a hard time with the 4th-level fighter, they may have to retreat out of the dungeon for a day or so of rest and recuperation. When they go back in, they may find that Lareth has taken all his treasure and left the lair. In such a case, the PCs loose out on a lot of treasure and xp. This could happen with any party in any edition. But this data collection (the adventure module itself) assumes the PCs will encounter Lareth and defeat him. (EGG even tells the DM what to do/what will happen after the PCs kill Lareth – an assassin will come after the PCs.)

Or, in the time the PCs are out, Lareth might bring in/hire more guards and humanoids. When the PCs come back and finish the adventure, they may actually gain more xp than was originally placed in the dungeon.

It's stated explicitly in the Moldvay-edit Basic Set (1981), and probably in the Mentzer-edit Basic Set (1983) as well that characters should receive approx. 80% of their XP from treasure and only 20% from monsters.

Where is this in the Moldvay set?

XP for Gold awards in AD&D were likewise reduced - using a different formula, IIRC - based on the difficulty of the fight.

What about treasure found without fighting enemies to get it?


So, I will continue listing the data as I have. Polls here on ENWorld show that most people never used the “measure of challenge” or the training rules in actual AD&D1 play. (I also have read that Gygax, himself, did not use those rules – MerricB, do you have a link to those statements?) Although polls on ENWorld shouldn’t be taken as universal fact, it does show me that most people here find the data in line with their real/actual play experiences.

Quasqueton

 

[Ron]

First: I checked my AD&D1 DMG, and indeed, a PC should stop gaining xp immediately at gaining the minimum for the next level. It is actually typed in all caps, but at the very end of the 2.5 pages of xp info (and you remember the density of the DMG’s text I was remembering the rule from the BD&D rules, that xp stops just short of the second level.

Personally, I never knew anyone who used this rule -- I wouldn’t use it today, either. But then I also still wouldn’t use the training rules either. Such rules in AD&D1 really just made xp and leveling logistics too tedious and aggravating.
[...]

Quasqueton

We used and it does make a difference as, in many modules, it's easy to accumulate experience points, especially for low level characters. We never used training, though, although I personally gave only one tenth of the printed treasure to players and still I think it was too much -- in my own adventures, the characters were much less wealthy.

 

[jrients]

Quasqueton, thank you for taking the time to research the mdoules, crunch the numbers, post, and re-post your results. I find your methods sound, as any proposed efficiency factor or other fudges only introduce more uncertainty into your estimates, not less.

OD&D and AD&D1 were fundamentally games about getting treasure, and killing monsters, disarming or avoiding traps, and solving puzzles were merely means to that end.

Although I've grown less curmudgeonly about the new-fangled editions of D&D, you've put your finger on one of the things that I miss in my 3.x play.

 

[Storm Raven]

I've got no horse in the AD&D1 vs. D&D3 race, I was just surprised that your calculations seemed significantly out of line with my considerable real-world experiences playing these modules, and was trying to pinpoint what might be some of the reasons why. After giving it a bit more thought, and taking your responses to my questions/comments into consideration, I'll admit that given your criteria (a party of 6 characters operating at peak efficiency -- no character deaths, no henchmen sucking up XP, no wasted XP upon leveling, killing every monster and recovering every piece of treasure) your calculations are indeed correct and such a group will be at significantly higher level upon completing the modules than mine were, because none of the groups I ever ran operated at anywhere near "peak efficiency" -- characters died and had to re-start at level 1/0 XP, they had henchmen diluting the XP haul, they were forced to waste XP upon leveling (especially at the end of T1, as noted previously), they didn't kill every monster, and they certainly didn't recover every piece of treasure.

For the specific purpose of comparing XP/level totals for an AD&D1 and a D&D3 group going through the module at peak efficiency I suppose this methodology works, but to extrapolate to a more general "a party who plays through this module will end at level x, XP y with z amount of gold and magic items a,b,c" type conclusion (which may not have ever been your intention, but it seems like others have been doing so) these calculations don't seem particularly accurate or useful to me. Perhaps if you included a "fudge factor" by assuming the party operates at average, say, 75% efficiency (i.e. they get 75% of the max. possible gold and XP) that would make the numbers more closely match the results I got through actual play, and thus more useful for DMs trying to plot out campaign-arcs using these modules and such...

However, for purposes of a comparison that sort of adjustment is essentially meaningless. If you assume that the 1e group is being "inefficient" to some degree, you will have to assume that the 3e group is similarly inefficient - resulting in a net wash.

The purpose of this comparison, as far as I can tell, is not to determine what PCs from various editions would "expect" as a result of going through these adventures, but a comparison across editions to see what the relative results would be like. So the 1e group doesn't get all of the treasure, you will have to assume that the 3e group wouldn't either, otherwise you are not really comparing the same things, you are jiggering the data to get to a particular result.

 

[dagger]

We used and it does make a difference as, in many modules, it's easy to accumulate experience points, especially for low level characters. We never used training, though, although I personally gave only one tenth of the printed treasure to players and still I think it was too much -- in my own adventures, the characters were much less wealthy.

I know 3 different groups that used that rule, including my own.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, once you reached enough XP for the next level - but had not gained it - you would stop gaining XP entirely until you trained for your next level. Note, that as awards were given after each expedition, it was theoretically possible to gain two levels at once (for a particularly goodly amount of XP).

In actual play of AD&D, training and reduced XP costs were often ignored. (I never saw them used in the games I participated in). Cheers!

Lots of things to say here:

1. Very interesting number-crunching, quas. Dare I ask how long it took?

2. My own 1e experience is vastly different in that every game I've ever been in has ditched the ExP-for-gold idea completely, usually replaced with a "dungeon bonus" at the end of each adventure based on whether the goal was achieved, survival, etc. To compensate, the ExP amounts needed to bump have usually been lowered after about 5th-level...still, the advancement rate overall is very slow.

3. Every game I've ever been in has required training for a PC to (fully) bump. However, you can continue to gain ExP after bumping, though there's a penalty if you go too long before training. It never made sense that someone would arbitrarily stop learning from their experiences. That said, do your numbers assume for both editions that characters are training "in the field", or do not need to train to advance (as 3e does)?

4. Most adventuring parties I've seen run between 7-15 characters, including henches, NPC adventurers, etc. As our adventures tend to sometimes be a bit on the lethal side, players have learned that running 2 PC's each avoids several sessions of having nothing to do when one of the PC's dies. (yes, our gaming groups and WotC's so-called market research results are very, very different)

5. A question: do your numbers assume a 100% opposition kill rate? (in other words, no opponents missed) Also, do they take into account ExP earned from wandering monsters? (sometimes, these can add up to as much as the module's pre-gen's)

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

5. A question: do your numbers assume a 100% opposition kill rate? (in other words, no opponents missed) Also, do they take into account ExP earned from wandering monsters? (sometimes, these can add up to as much as the module's pre-gen's)

Heh, never thought of this one. Some are arguing that Quas' numbers are very high. This would balance things out a lot as well.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

First, let me thank Quas for all this hard work -- this is fascinating.

Second -- unlike others who have posted here, I think this does match my own 1E and BD&D experience. Although the parties I DM'd (many times) through these modules didn't come out at the precise levels he has indicated, they were typically groups of 8 PCs who didn't hit every encounter, get every treasure, or have a 100% survival rate. Applying that to my nostalgic memories, and I can see hitting the same levels that Quas has posted here.

I ran a number of one player solo adventures in B/ED&D (being a too-generous young DM, I wasn't particularly deadly) and those characters would level at phenomenal rates. Both solo and party PCs had ludicrous amounts of treasure after a while ... gold that simply couldn't be spent, and surplus magic weapons for days. I have a number of character sheets and my DM records still from back in the 80s that clearly show those trends both for solo characters as well as large party play. For my group(s), that was the point of strongholds -- to have a place for your racks of surplus +1 swords.

Also, as I was raised on B/ED&D before moving to AD&D, I used the B/ED&D XP system -- stop 1 XP short of the next level, and no training time or gold requirements (something I was happy to see dropped in 3E). I did give magic item XP per the DMG tables, but didn't give XP for sold items. And I didn't ever adjust XP for encounter difficulty -- one of a number of things I'm not surprised I missed in the 1E DMG, as every time I pick that book up I find something new.

 

[Quasqueton]

A question: do your numbers assume a 100% opposition kill rate? (in other words, no opponents missed) Also, do they take into account ExP earned from wandering monsters? (sometimes, these can add up to as much as the module's pre-gen's)

My data is a listing/calculation of every set/numbered encounter in the adventure. I do not include wandering monsters (too variable).

Again, the xp/level data is not going to be a perfect representation of the exact way each and every party will level in the adventure.

The party may run through the adventure, avoiding most of the encounters, kill the BBEG, and move on with half the xp and treasure in the adventure.

The party may run in and run out, numerous times, allowing guards and such to be “restocked” between raids. They may encounter many wandering monsters. When a monster carries 2-12 gp, the DM may roll 12 (in this data collection, I assumed an average roll for all random treasure values). So this party may end up with double the xp and treasure in the adventure.

The party may hire a small army to march into the dungeon with them and have to split xp and treasure with 20 characters.

The party may number only 3 PCs (of very experienced and competent Players) and still raze the whole dungeon.

Or the party may have the average number of characters, go through and encounter each area once, get the average treasure rolls, and get the exact xp and treasure amounts I’ve listed.


I decided to go with what is listed in the adventure, straight, as is. Some people may consider these numbers the maximum potential; some may consider it the minimum expectation. I believe it is the average probability.

Considering this average probability, the only way the AD&D1 party would come out lower level than what I’ve calculated is if the game used the training rules – but polls here, and conversations I’ve had in other places (Web and Real World) shows that the majority of games did not use the training rules.

And even if you do use the training rules in the level calculations shown so far, it only reduces the AD&D1 party one level on average.

Also, as I was raised on B/ED&D before moving to AD&D, I used the B/ED&D XP system -- stop 1 XP short of the next level, and no training time or gold requirements (something I was happy to see dropped in 3E). I did give magic item XP per the DMG tables, but didn't give XP for sold items. And I didn't ever adjust XP for encounter difficulty -- one of a number of things I'm not surprised I missed in the 1E DMG, as every time I pick that book up I find something new.

This describes my experience, as well. Although I would have given xp for sold magic items, no one ever sold a magic item in my campaigns. I generally marked out a lot of treasure (money and magic) from published adventures, and I simply didn’t put in nearly as much treasure in my homemade adventures. So the PCs didn’t usually have a surplus of either in my campaigns – by my intentional design.

[But I saw characters from other games with notebook pages full of magic items gathered from published and homemade adventures.]

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Very interesting number-crunching, quas. Dare I ask how long it took?

Time depends on the adventure.

The T1-4 adventure has the xp value of each creature right in the creature’s stat block, so that was straight forward. This was a convenient feature of the mega-module design. In other adventure modules, I have to refer to the back of the DMG for the pre-calculated (except for the hit point variable) xp award.

The B2 adventure required me to calculate the xp for each monster encountered.

Getting the gp and magic required reading each encounter area description with a close eye because the info was mixed in with the text – Gygax (the author of the adventures I’ve so far covered for AD&D1 and B/ED&D) seemed to have a “stream of consciousness” style of writing in his adventure modules.

The D&D3 adventure required me to look up the CR of each creature and then look up the xp on the DMG chart. Finding the treasure was much easier though, as the current style of adventure module layout tends to organize the DM info better for quicker reference and reading.

Although I didn’t time my work, I’d figure it took me about 1.5 hours to go through an adventure (or two levels in the ToEE) and pull out the data. Figure 1 hour to calculate it all and write it up in an ENWorld forum format.

I’ve read these adventures so closely, now, that I could probably run them without the texts.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, I will continue listing the data as I have. Polls here on ENWorld show that most people never used the “measure of challenge” or the training rules in actual AD&D1 play. (I also have read that Gygax, himself, did not use those rules – MerricB, do you have a link to those statements?) Although polls on ENWorld shouldn’t be taken as universal fact, it does show me that most people here find the data in line with their real/actual play experiences.

We used it.

If you do not account for the RAW of the editions described, it is no wonder that the experiences of those who used the RAW differ from the numbers you are showing.

Either way, though, the raw data (pun intended) is interesting enough. I'm sure that, if someone else is interested enough, they can go through it again to deal with the XP/Training issues.

RC

 

[Quasqueton]

If you do not account for the RAW of the editions described, it is no wonder that the experiences of those who used the RAW differ from the numbers you are showing.

Either way, though, the raw data (pun intended) is interesting enough. I'm sure that, if someone else is interested enough, they can go through it again to deal with the XP/Training issues.

I’ve adhered to the RAW as closely as possible in this data. The training rules (including the xp-stop) makes any such general calculations extremely complicated at best, and just impossible at worst.

Because of the variable xp charts in AD&D1, someone doing the calculations must judge the xp cut off for the different classes at different times. Then one must figure, “well, does the party stop the adventure and let the one or two PCs train up, or do they continue and tell the PCs to just suck up the xp loss?” If they don’t stop, then the different PCs will have different xp totals – the thief stops at 1,251 and can’t gain anymore, but the magic-user continues gaining up to 2,501. So when the party does decide to stop for training, and they all level up, the magic-user has double the xp total as the thief, even though they were on the same adventure.

This seriously screws over the classes with lower xp needs – kind of destroys this class item as a feature and balancing factor. (What’s the benefit of having low xp needs when you can only level up at the same time as another class that requires much more xp? Might as well all have the same xp needs.)

And, someone doing the calculations must do some figuring as to when a game session or dungeon delve ends/breaks and when the DM would award xp. This is pure guess work, and is too variable to make any kind of probability data.

This variability is the same reason why I haven’t included the xp for magic items. A single character gets the xp for an item he uses, but the gp-xp value is spread among the party if they sell it. And what if no one uses the item, but they don’t sell it either?

Figuring the data as some are suggesting would variabalize it out of any probability or comparative usefulness.

It’s like talking about an AD&D1 1st-level fighter’s hit points. If I say the fighter has 6 hit points (taking the average and rounding up, and not including a Con modifier), some would be correct in saying that the fighter could actually have anywhere from 1 to 14 hit points – the d10 variable plus Con modifier. This is technically correct, but it doesn’t do any good when you are trying to look at the average probability, or trying to compare it to other editions. (And then, of course, there’d be others saying they use different methods of rolling hit points, and so their results would be vastly different.)

But I would hope that everyone could agree on 6 hit points for an AD&D 1st-level fighter as a baseline for discussion and comparison. Or you can dismiss any discussion or comparison because assuming 6 hit points doesn't fit the full rule range and doesn't jive with someone's personal game experience ("I never had a fighter with more than 5 hit points.")

Quasqueton

 

[jcfiala]

Either way, though, the raw data (pun intended) is interesting enough. I'm sure that, if someone else is interested enough, they can go through it again to deal with the XP/Training issues.

How would you suggest doing that? Was there a general time period that most groups would stop for retraining? Was it when 2 people needed retraining? When 75% of the group did? Did groups finish a module before being able to retrain?

I never used the retraining rules when playing AD&D1, so I'm curious.

 

[Rothe]

How would you suggest doing that? Was there a general time period that most groups would stop for retraining? Was it when 2 people needed retraining? When 75% of the group did? Did groups finish a module before being able to retrain?

I never used the retraining rules when playing AD&D1, so I'm curious.

I can only answer from personal experience but generally when 2 people needed training; for the one DM who used training. Our parties were typically 4 PCs without henchmen (but with a trained war dog typically). We never got xp for treasure even with the guy who used training. What we would do is leave the dungeon to train. Since the dungeon might restock and prepare for our visit we might just never go back, or very cautiously scout it first to see if they reinforced. IIRC we never finished a dungeon with this DM because of the training interrupted the dungeon crawl. Since we got no xp of gold we still got pretty far, yet I'm sure this frustrated this DM. Luckily he didn't try to railroad us into doing something we as players and our characters would never do: attack a position that has been prepared and reinforced for weeks by an enemy that now knows your tactics/abilities.

I'd be interested to see how others who did use training played modules. Did you leave to train? If so did you go back to the dungeon? And if you went back to the dungeon where its denizens prepared for your return?

In all the other 1e AD&D campaigns back in the day (1979-1984), my own included, we never got xp for gold, never had training (except in certain cleric and MU cases or if you wanted to be a bard) and one could level on the spot IF to get experience you did things your class normally did/acted like your class, used your class abilities etc. It was a training by doing mentality. In these campaigns we did tend to clean out dungeons and were very methodical about it.

You might think with no xp for gold we leveled very slowly and with no training costs we got obscenely rich. Not really on both accounts. On the first we typically played on average 20-30 hours per week every week, that's well over a 1,000 hours of playing per year with marathon weeks during holidays. We never got obscenely rich for our level either because encumberance rules were strictly enforced. Thus, it was hard to carry out too much coin even with bags of holding. There was also taxes, tithes if a cleric, paladin, druid or ranger, dues if a member of a thieves guild, and getting new spells was costly as none ever sprang to mind when leveling. We also invariably played good aligned characters so we often made donations to various temples, our characters families, the poor, etc. if nothing else, to ensure some friendly clerics for raise dead etc. spells and a friendly base of operations. You'd be surprised how hard it is for someone to assasinate you when you are loved by the servants and common folk in a village.

 

[Enkhidu]

I'm hoping to see the later levels posted fairly soon, so we can get to the "name level" slowdown debate.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Great work, Quasqueton. Really good stuff.

My experience is that 1e/2e PCs do not level very differently at lower levels than 3e. But advancement ground to a virtual halt ~8th level in earlier editions because of the exponential xp goals (which one would expect to change radically once one hit the 'teen levels if the DM does not purposefully hold back on the gp -- but I have no significant personal experience in campaigns at those levels to confirm this).

I am very curious about the G-series.