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

[Ariosto]

I have not asserted that most treasure in modules was cleverly hidden from discovery!

Even in a campaign dungeon, it should be true of only a small portion of the value (primarily "incidental" treasures directly guarded neither by monster nor by trap, although some especially desirable ones might pose all three challenges).

 

[Storm Raven]

I have not asserted that most treasure in modules was cleverly hidden from discovery!

Even in a campaign dungeon, it should be true of only a small portion of the value (primarily "incidental" treasures directly guarded neither by monster nor by trap, although some especially desirable ones might pose all three challenges).

You may not have, but Crowking certainly has.

But your other questions have been addressed. For example, you stated that the comparison might be flawed because of 1e's varying experience point charts, and thus you could only come up with an "average level" for the party as a whole. But that's not how Quas did the survey. He created what he believed to be (and in my opinion, his belief was pretty good) a representative party of characters and tracked their individual level progression using the gained experience from the modules.

And so on. The quibbles you have are addressed in the thread. I recommend reading it and then deciding if you have an issue with Quas' survey.

 

[Ariosto]

The modules available during the 1e era are a decent indicator of what the standard version of play was intended to be.

What is the basis for this claim? Is it just circular logic? It is certainly no claim I recall being made on the modules' behalf by the man who designed the game.

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.

Why the presumption that the game was meant to be played otherwise than the books indicated? Such much-debated minutia -- confused by poor editing -- as how to handle initiative are not about to be cleared up by reference to modules; nor do they appear to be the subjects at hand.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyhow ... I will get on with reading on!

 

[Storm Raven]

What is the basis for this claim? Is it just circular logic? It is certainly no claim I recall being made on the modules' behalf by the man who designed the game.

The basis is that the modules present us with an indication of what the publisher of the game, whose writers made up the core group that produced the game, thought were appropriate challenges and rewards for a part of adventurers of a level range indicated on the adventure. You think there is some hidden alchemy at work here?

Why the presumption that the game was meant to be played otherwise than the books indicated? Such much-debated minutia -- confused by poor editing -- as how to handle initiative are not about to be cleared up by reference to modules; nor do they appear to be the subjects at hand.

The books don't give an indication of what the desingers thought were appropriate challenges and rewards were for a party of adventurers. Sure, there are treasure types, but using those usually gives even more treasure than the modules hand out (sit down and do the work one of these days. You will be surprised). The modules give us a concrete example of adventure design as it was intended by Gygax and his core of writers in the 1e era.

No one is talking about mechanics like initiative. Merely what a successful party of adventurers playing through a representative series of adventures from the era is likely to receive in terms of rewards.

The key element that this survey reveals is that the "slow leveling" that many people remember from 1e was not actually from the 1e rules. It was a side effect of a common house rule that treasure did not give experience. In the modules, the bulk of the experience gained is derived from treasure, not from defeating monsters. Further, using this house rule would have the side effect of making many of the module series extraordinarily difficult to complete, as the characters would not advance in level sufficiently swiftly to be prepared for the challenges of the later adventures.

But you will see that when you read the thread.

 

[fanboy2000]

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. )

This thread isn't about proving nothing changed. Quasqueton compiled data about old modules, using famous adventures from different era's of D&D and compared them to running the same adventure using 3e rules.

The idea was to bring facts into the argument, specifically facts about how the designers intended older D&D to be ran. Why not do the same thing? Take an AD&D module and find out how much magic, xp, and gold an AD&D party get and compare it to what a party of 3e (or 4e) characters get?

Observations I've made based on the data:

Magic items were not rarer in AD&D1 than they are in D&D3. In fact, by the same levels, a party will probably have quite a bit more magic in AD&D1 than in D&D3. But D&D3 allows the PCs to tailor and customize their magic items to better suit their needs. An AD&D1 fighter may have a +1 broadsword, a +1 spear, a +1 handaxe, and a +2 dagger at 5th level, but the D&D3 fighter might have his preferred +2 greatsword at 5th level. (A quantity vs. quality issue?)

And especially things like potions and scrolls. Note how the poor AD&D1 illusionist in this data doesn't find a scroll until about 6th level, and it has only one spell. A D&D3 spellcaster can have a handful of chosen spell scrolls by 3rd level, either by purchasing them or scribing them personally. But AD&D1 spellcasters just got what they found.

The D&D3 characters are not leveling up appreciably faster than the AD&D1 characters. 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.

Anyone else's experience support this?

So, I'm curious, RC what were your experiences with AD&D1?

And another question: If you were to run an AD&D game one day and an D&D 4e game the next, what would the difference be aside from the rules? (Feel free to interpret this question in any way that makes sense to you.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If the goal of your argument is to convince me, then it is relevant that your "evidence" is not well enough supported to do so. If you don't want to convince me, my opinion is irrelevant to you.

Upthread, Q agreed that there were a number of things that he couldn't take into account in his analysis. There is nothing in his evidence, AFAICT, that suggests that more than a percentage of wealth/XP possible would ever be gained by a party going through any of these modules.

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.

A concrete example would require detailing what is necessary to find said wealth, both in terms of where the wealth is and in terms of where the wealth is not. Something does not have to be soo very hard to find, if there are other factors that prevent you from finding it.

As a simple example, if there is a 100% chance of finding X if you look in the right square, then the chance of finding X is determined by the number of possible squares compared to the number of squares you look in. I.e., if there are 10 squares, and you look in 1, then the chance is 1 in 10. Likewise, if there are 100 squares, and you look in 1, then the chance is 1 in 100. The item may not be more cleverly hidden in either square, but the odds of finding it have changed.

The more linear a path a module assumes, the greater the chance that you will investigate any given square. Thus, for example, treasure hidden in modules like Keep on the Borderlands or Forge of Fury are less likely to be found than treasures hidden in, say, Barrow of the Forgotten King.....or the really linear Slave Lord module with the aspis (Something of the Slave Lords).

The use of wandering monsters in earlier D&D intentionally prevented most parties from searching every square inch of a place. Similarly, some modules (Inverness, Tomachan) used other time constraints to prevent the PCs from searching everything. Stay in the Ghost Tower too long and you disappear with it. Stay in the Shrine too long and the poison kills you. These factors prevent PCs from having the time needed to search everything, everywhere.

If there is a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster after every combat, and a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster every hour, and it takes 10 minutes to cut open a monster and search its insides, one soon realizes that, if the DM is following the DMG guidelines, not every monster's tummy is going to be turned out on the off chance that there is a bit of amber in its lower intestine.

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

How likely is this to be found? Depends very much on the DM.

PC: We search the ogre's bed.

DM: It seems to be made of old carpeting and rags. Ten minutes searching uncovers no hidden bags or chest. (rolls for wandering monster, a 4, so there is no encounter).

or possibly

PC: I'd like to take a closer look at those rags. There might be a magical cloak or robe in there!

DM: Going through all of the bedding will take you about an hour.

PC: Never mind.

or possibly

PC: I think we can spare the hour. Bob, you go watch the door.

DM: You spend about an hour. Everything is pretty filthy and torn (rolls die for effect), although there is one cloak that looks like it could be usable if laundered. It smells pretty badly right now. (Rolls wandering monster die, a 1.) Bob, while you are watching at the door.....

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

How likely are the PCs to investigate everything in the pool of water? Even if they do so, how likely are they to find the skull? The pin? Again, this is non-quantifiable.......but is nonetheless significant when determining what is likely to happen in actual play.

On top of which, the notes in modules like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and Keep on the Borderlands make it clear that, should the PCs attack and retreat, the treasure (and the monsters) might not be there when they get back. The Hill Giant Chief, for example, could fall back and reinforce the Frost Giant Jarl. Mostly defeated humanoids in the Caves might leave while the PCs are resting up, taking their treasures with them.

I don't deny that Q's thought experiment provides interesting and thought-provoking data. I do deny that it is relevant to actual play experience. Moreover, my experience having played some of these modules with several groups suggests to me that Q's conclusions about rate of advancement and treasure gain are wrong.

When I say that I am unconvinced, it is because Q has not demonstrated evidence sufficient to address my objections (as described above), nor to overide my firsthand experience with (some of) the modules in question.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No one is talking about mechanics like initiative. Merely what a successful party of adventurers playing through a representative series of adventures from the era is likely to receive in terms of rewards.

I don't think that even Q is making this claim.

What a successful party of adventurers playing through a representative series of adventures from the era is likely to receive in terms of rewards =/= what a successful party of adventurers playing through a representative series of adventures from the era may possibly receive in terms of rewards.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

A concrete example would require detailing what is necessary to find said wealth, both in terms of where the wealth is and in terms of where the wealth is not. Something does not have to be soo very hard to find, if there are other factors that prevent you from finding it.

Which means you missed the main thrust of the argument which is this: the bulk of the treasure isn't hidden at all. Out of 30,000+ gp worth of mundane treasure about 3,700 is "hidden". Out of the magic items, a handful are hidden, and those are the weakest and least useful items in the bunch.

In other words, even if you assume every single "hidden" item is not located, the adventurers will come away with 85% of the treasure in the module.

The more linear a path a module assumes, the greater the chance that you will investigate any given square. Thus, for example, treasure hidden in modules like Keep on the Borderlands or Forge of Fury are less likely to be found than treasures hidden in, say, Barrow of the Forgotten King.....or the really linear Slave Lord module with the aspis (Something of the Slave Lords).

The modules with the aspis is A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity. The campaign version of the module is anything but linear. if you want a linear adventure in that series, you need to look at A3: Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords. But neither is truly relevant here, since they weren't part of the survey.

If there is a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster after every combat, and a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster every hour, and it takes 10 minutes to cut open a monster and search its insides, one soon realizes that, if the DM is following the DMG guidelines, not every monster's tummy is going to be turned out on the off chance that there is a bit of amber in its lower intestine.

Except for things like frogs, dinosaurs, giant lizards, and other creatures that swallow their food whole. Note that these are the monsters that usually have treasure inside their stomachs. I can't think of an example of an ogre or bugbear with treasure in its gizzard. And in the example given, the treasure that has been swallowed amounts to a +1 shield and a 100 gp gem, a tiny percentage of the total. The lizard's bounty is explicitly listed as being "easily found".

How likely is this to be found? Depends very much on the DM.

PC: We search the ogre's bed.

DM: It seems to be made of old carpeting and rags. Ten minutes searching uncovers no hidden bags or chest. (rolls for wandering monster, a 4, so there is no encounter).

or possibly

PC: I'd like to take a closer look at those rags. There might be a magical cloak or robe in there!

DM: Going through all of the bedding will take you about an hour.

PC: Never mind.

or possibly

PC: I think we can spare the hour. Bob, you go watch the door.

DM: You spend about an hour. Everything is pretty filthy and torn (rolls die for effect), although there is one cloak that looks like it could be usable if laundered. It smells pretty badly right now. (Rolls wandering monster die, a 1.) Bob, while you are watching at the door.....

An hour? How big do you think that pile of bedding is? I am married and have two kids. You could pile every bit of clothing, bedclothes, and towels the four of us own into a single pile and it wouldn't take an hour to look through.

I guess there is simply no defense against a DM being a dick.

How likely are the PCs to investigate everything in the pool of water? Even if they do so, how likely are they to find the skull? The pin? Again, this is non-quantifiable.......but is nonetheless significant when determining what is likely to happen in actual play.

No, it isn't. Since the treasure involved is a tiny percentage of the total in the module. You keep arguing that the treasure involved is a huge deal, when it has been shown to be almost trivial in volume and value.

In the end, your argument simply doesn't hold up because it assumes that the value of the treasure that is "hidden" is huge. Even if you assume that the PCs will miss every piece of hidden treasure, the resulting difference is trivial. And that's why your argument is entirely incoherent.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This thread isn't about proving nothing changed.

I hope you read the bit from Quasqueton that you quoted, where he makes the claims that neither magic treasure nor speed of advancement have changed.

There are three things I'm going to have to do once I get done with the RCFG Player's Guide and have a bit more time.

(1) Go through the pre-3e Dragons where the first 3e hints are coming up. If memory serves, WotC's market research showed that people like leveling, but often didn't reach high levels because older edition leveling was too slow. It was actually an explicit design goal to speed up rate of leveling, again, if memory serves.

I remember as well that there was a leveling comparison where the number of orcs a fighter had to slay to get from 1st to 2nd level was compared between 2e and 3e, and the 3e fighter was at a real advantage. More than a factor of 10.

EDIT: Please note that, although Q isn't looking at 2e modules or rates of advancement, unless one is arguing that 2e has slower advancement than 1e (and, by Q's argument, 3e) it is relevant.

(2) Perform what I would consider a thorough analysis of one or two of the same modules chosen by Q, showing explicitly what would be required in order to gain the benefits he lists.

(3) Give a complete answer to this question:

So, I'm curious, RC what were your experiences with AD&D1?

And another question: If you were to run an AD&D game one day and an D&D 4e game the next, what would the difference be aside from the rules? (Feel free to interpret this question in any way that makes sense to you.)

Frankly, due to rules, I'd rather run RCFG than either of those games. I still haven't run Keep on the Shadowfell using RCFG, although I have now run some of the classic Gygax modules.

But.....1e would run much more quickly, especially combat. This means a higher encounter rate, and therefore more willingness on the players' part to spend time dealing with what might seem like minutia. I.e., exploring the setting. It would be easier to make any 1e combat seem relevant enough for the time spent, because so little time would be spent on that encounter.

OTOH, characters in the 1e world would take more in-game time to deal with the same encounters, because their damage would be more lasting, and because they would need to take more care with in-game resources on a broader level (as opposed to merely within the combat sub-game).

1e is also more firmly rooted in the tropes of S&S, which makes for a game more suited to my tastes.

I am sure I could hodgepodge 4e into something I'd want to run, but I'd get a lot more bang for my buck with 1e. And RCFG would give me best value.

YMMV.

RC