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

[Raven Crowking]

This has been addressed in the thread

Inadequately. AFAICT, it is addressed as a claim without real data to back it up.

Raising a single example and then claiming that it relates to all treasure, as you do, would allow me to claim that all treasure is hidden so as to be unlikely to ever be found.

It is an invalid argument.

Perhaps you could point to the post(s) offering something more substantial.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

A load of 20,000 coins is 400 pounds of encumbrance in 3E; in AD&D, it is a short ton -- five times as much!

Moreover, the AD&D characters depend on treasure for most of their XP. They must get it home (and get what prices they can for gems, jewelry, objets d'art, etc.) before getting the XP.

So, unless the XP figures being compared are strictly those for defeating monsters, the undertakings seem to me utterly incommensurate.

If you look at the actual lists of treasure provided, you will find that the bulk of mundane treasure lootable from most modules is in the form of relatively easily transportable gems, jewelry, and other modest encumbrance items. There are relatively few instances in which a pile of coins is lying about to be looted. The concern over the supposed vast weight of treasure to be carried seems to me, based upon a review of the actual treasure found in the modules, to be highly overblown.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A load of 20,000 coins is 400 pounds of encumbrance in 3E; in AD&D, it is a short ton -- five times as much!

Moreover, the AD&D characters depend on treasure for most of their XP. They must get it home (and get what prices they can for gems, jewelry, objets d'art, etc.) before getting the XP.

So, unless the XP figures being compared are strictly those for defeating monsters, the undertakings seem to me utterly incommensurate.

Now, now, Ariosto. This thread is about proving that nothing has changed. Don't go bringing facts into it. (Unless you slant them properly, of course. )


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Inadequately. AFAICT, it is addressed as a claim without real data to back it up.

Raising a single example and then claiming that it relates to all treasure, as you do, would allow me to claim that all treasure is hidden so as to be unlikely to ever be found.

It is an invalid argument.

Perhaps you could point to the post(s) offering something more substantial.

Perhaps you should, as I pointed out earlier, read the thread. Quasqueton addressed this issue pretty directly (in Post 119):

I’ve read this assertion before, but I haven’t seen this in the adventure modules I’ve gone through. The vast majority of treasure is not hidden. And that treasure that is hidden, is not much, and only rarely “ridiculously” or “devilishly” (as someone else said) well hidden.

The Moathouse's "hidden" treasure:

1- in the belly of a giant frog = a 100gp gem

2- "the brigands have buried a chest. . . Three turns of digging" = 265gp value, +1 arrows (x4)

3- "in the litter of its nesting" = 850gp value

4- In a lone wall cresset, a "nondescript torch stub is a silver baton" = 30gp value

5- "[The giant lizard] has previously swallowed a shield +1, easily found if appropriate actions are taken after the battle." = +1 shield

6- "hidden behind a loose stone" = 500gp value

7- "intermixed with the old carpeting and rags of [the ogre's] bedding" = elven cloak

8- in a pool of water, under a skull = a pin worth a total of 2,000gp

9- in the "mess" of a ghoul nest = 40gp value, 1 potion, 1 scroll

10- "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber = 15,000gp piece of jewelry [Is this actually "hidden", in the context of this discussion? Just in a cabinet.]

Total of 3,785 gp value (out of 30,938gp) not immediately or obviously discoverable. Plus a 15,000gp piece of jewelry "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber, which "If seriously threatened, Lareth will offer all his non-magical treasures---jewelry, coins, and all else---as ransom for his life."

So, about 10% of the nonmagical treasure plus a handful of extremely minor items (four +1 arrows, an elven cloak, one potion and one scroll, plus a +1 shield that though hidden is "easy to find"). The only one that seems difficult to find is the buried bandit treasure. The others range from mildly difficult to easy to locate. And they amount to a fairly inconsequential volume of the treasure. Looking through other 1e modules, this pattern is replicated over and over. Most of the treasure is easy to find. A small percentage is hidden in ways that range all over the place in terms of difficulty to locate.

 

[Ariosto]

The Drow modules (and perhaps some others) are fortuitously rich in gems and jewelry that make for convenient carrying off.

On the other hand, they are also fairly non-linear scenarios -- especially relative to some other tournament rounds, of course, but also compared with what I have seen of 3E adventures (which I suppose might not be representative).

A simple structure may appear at a very gross level, but the "pearls" on the "string" turn out on closer examination to resemble a wilderness adventure more than a dungeon.

The Temple of Elemental Evil has some problems as a proper campaign dungeon, but it is not terribly much lacking in number of possible paths -- no few of which can end in death rather than gold and glory.

 

[Fifth Element]

Inadequately. AFAICT, it is addressed as a claim without real data to back it up.

Raising a single example and then claiming that it relates to all treasure, as you do, would allow me to claim that all treasure is hidden so as to be unlikely to ever be found.

It is an invalid argument.

Perhaps you could point to the post(s) offering something more substantial.

Invalid, if the single example were the only argument, which it is not. The remainder of the argument lies previously in the thread. If you have indeed read the thread, you should know what is being referred to here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Invalid, if the single example were the only argument, which it is not. The remainder of the argument lies previously in the thread. If you have indeed read the thread, you should know what is being referred to here.

Invalid, if examples are insufficient, or do not demonstrate what they are claimed to demonstrate.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

This thread is about proving that nothing has changed.

That may be. It may even be fair to say that in some respects modules have not much changed.

I suppose that could be a fine buzzing distraction from consideration of how the games as presented in the books have changed ... or even from the fact that in my experience (which may not have been unusual), module play was generally something quite distinct from campaign play.

If modules (tournament scenarios, even) are taken today as the normative measure of the game, then that itself may indicate a change.

 

[Storm Raven]

Invalid, if examples are insufficient, or do not demonstrate what they are claimed to demonstrate.

So, basically you have no argument other than to repeatedly state that treasure in 1e modules was really hard to find, despite the evidence presented that this wasn't actually the case.

The only people posting contentless rants at this point are you and Aristoi. You've asserted that the treasure in 1e modules should be vastly discounted because it was soo very hard to find. This assertion has been investigated and refuted with concrete examples.

Where are the facts to back up your assertion? Your say-so?

Sorry, but you need something more. Show us the 1e module in the examples with most of its treasure cleverly hidden from discovery. Go ahead. We can wait.

 

[Storm Raven]

That may be. It may even be fair to say that in some respects modules have not much changed.

I suppose that could be a fine buzzing distraction from consideration of how the games as presented in the books have changed ... or even from the fact that in my experience (which may not have been unusual), module play was generally something quite distinct from campaign play.

Which is why most modules that had been used as tournament modules had expanded campaign versions in the commercially available products. You think Quas is using modules that were tournament only and somehow not used in many home campaigns?

If modules (tournament scenarios, even) are taken today as the normative measure of the game, then that itself may indicate a change.

The modules available during the 1e era are a decent indicator of what the standard version of play was intended to be. They are also the only neutral baseline we have to evaluate the way the game was intended to be played at the time they were released. If you don't like tounrament modules, then I'm sure a series of 1e adventures can be created taking characters from 1st level to high levels that use entirely non-tournament modules.