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

[SWBaxter]

Can someone tell me the CR of a leucrotta?

There's one in "The Wizard's Amulet", Necromancer Games' first (and free) adventure, they peg it at CR 3. I don't know off-hand if it's appeared anywhere else.

Thanks for working through this comparison, it's pretty interesting. Brings back some fond memories, too.

 

[gizmo33]

Now maybe I’m reading these posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that there is a strong undercurrent of disbelief about the data.

Yea, it doesn't match at all with my experiences. I'm really surprised you can get to 3rd level from the Moathouse in Hommlet. I remember being shocked at the level advancement in 3E when we started playing it.

I don't understand why I would have been shocked. Granted, I used a houserules XP system for many years before 3E. But I ran plenty of TSR modules and used normal 1E XP rules for years prior to that - you would have thought I would have said "wow - this reminds me of 1E".

I don't have the numbers in front of me - I think the XP awards for killing a bugbear, for instance, would be pretty easy to compare as a % of what a fighter of X level needs for next level. I really expect the 3E awards to be far higher.

That's not the whole story though, because as you point out, there's a treasure award as well. I think that's where this is all coming from. I might still have some old XP sheets from early games (I'm a packrat when it comes to DnD notes). I'll dig out the modules and have a look at things so you don't feel like the only one that's looked at this. I never had any doubts about your honesty.

 

[T. Foster]

Now maybe I’m reading these posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that there is a strong undercurrent of disbelief about the data. Instead of asking questions and pointing things out to make sure I’m taking all reasonable things into account, it reads like some are trying to poke holes in the data and/or cast aspersions on my honesty. I’m wondering why.

Is it unbelievable that AD&D1 and D&D3 characters might gain levels at about the same rate, judging from the iconic/official adventure modules? What is the resistance to the data, here? I mean, some of the points being asked about here really seem like stretches. And the subtle hints that I’m making up stuff, ignoring rules, or making unreasonable assumptions seem a little catty. Not that I’m infallible, but I’m not biased on this subject either. (I expected slower AD&D1 advancement and faster D&D3 advancement, too.)

If you stick around for a while, you’ll see that the D&D3 group does eventually pull ahead in the level advancement rate, later. (It happens at around “name level.”) But if you want to work so hard to discredit the data in the beginning, I guess the later data will be dismissed as well.

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...

 

[Aaron L]

I just love all of the "thats not true, thats unpossible!" responses to the factual evidence presented. No matter how youre home group or DM decided to play/run the module, this is exactly how they were written, inarguably.


Everyone looking at 1E through rose tinted nostalgia just cant handle it. Its giggle inducing.


(BTW, I LIKE 1E)

 

[SWBaxter]

That's not the whole story though, because as you point out, there's a treasure award as well.

The treasure award is actually most of the story. Not for nothing do people say D&D is about "killing things and taking their stuff" - in 1E, taking their stuff was the major source of XP. Lots of people houseruled the XP system, which I suspect is one of the reasons some people are reporting their memories don't match the facts Quasqueton has posted. Of course, lots of DMs reduced the treasure in those modules, which would also mess with the advancement rate. I personally eventually switched to the "silver standard", which basically meant that experience due to treasure was 1/10th of the listed amount.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm waiting for the comparison that demonstrates that characters went from 9th to 20th level as fast in 1e as 3e. That should be quite an eyeopener.

In addition, the fact that you could not gain enough XP to gain 2 levels before you had trained to gain the first per 1e RAW (the remainder being irrevocably lost) does need to be factored in to determine what the final XP calculations are for modules in 1e. Ignoring such a significant rules difference will by necessity to skew results.

I could say that person X and person Y both donated $100.00 to a charity, but if I didn't take into account that person X reneged on half the payment, my data would be in extreme variance with reality, especially if it was compounded over a period of regular donations.

RC

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If you stick around for a while, you’ll see that the D&D3 group does eventually pull ahead in the level advancement rate, later.

I'm waiting for the comparison that demonstrates that characters went from 9th to 20th level as fast in 1e as 3e. That should be quite an eyeopener.

As Quasqueton said his as yet unpublished results don't show that... I guess you'll be waiting a long time.

 

[Quasqueton]

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)

To humor you...
The parties at 75% "efficiency":

AD&D1 party finishes ToEE at: (121,476 xp each)
Fighter 7
Paladin 7
Cleric 8
Magic-User 8
Illusionist 8
Thief 9

D&D3 party finishes ToEE at: (30,938 xp eachl)
Fighter 8
Paladin 8
Cleric 8
Wizard 8
Illusionist 8
Rogue 8

The AD&D1 party averages level 7.8, the D&D3 party averages level 8. (And this still does not include xp for magic items.)

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Lots of people houseruled the XP system, which I suspect is one of the reasons some people are reporting their memories don't match the facts Quasqueton has posted. Of course, lots of DMs reduced the treasure in those modules, which would also mess with the advancement rate.

This is what I suggested, too:

I suspect that what many people remember as very slow leveling in AD&D1 is a result of DMs not including as much treasure in their campaigns as the official adventures (and the rules as written) include (and assume). For instance, an official adventure might have 1,000xp worth of monsters and then 9,000gp as treasure (for a total 10,000xp). But an individual DM's adventure may have 1,000xp worth of monsters and only 2,000gp as treasure (for a total 3,000xp). Thus leveling was slowed greatly. But this is an effect of the DM, not the rules.

I remember doing this when I ran an AD&D1 game. It was not my intention to slow advancement, but thinking back on it now, that was a byproduct of my style.

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.

None of my AD&D1 campaigns ever got characters above 7-8th level. Had I not cut the xp for gp, they might have gotten up much higher. I didn't *want* to slow level advancement -- it was a side effect of trying to take out so much of the monetary treasure from the campaign.

It's an interesting concept -- by reducing the treasure awards of their games, many DMs may have made their games level slowly, against the expectations of the standard rules. And they probably did this without realizing the effect they were making.

It's also an interesting concept that what many people claim was a normal aspect of AD&D1 (slow level advancement) may actually have been an inadvertant, yet artificial construct of a DM's house rules.

It's also an interesting concept that slower advancement is possibly the easiest change to make in a D&D3 campaign.

Quasqueton

 

[T. Foster]

Still higher level than either time I ran it (guess we were at less than 75% efficiency...) but a little closer. 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).

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...

*truly wise players will actually seek to avoid combat whenever possible-- or at least get as much treasure with as little fighting as possible. As the calculations show, treasure is where the XP is at in AD&D, and trying to gain XP by killing monsters is a sucker bet. This isn't evidence that the system is broken or that too much treasure is being given out, it's the way the game was designed. 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.