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