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

[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.