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

[Ariosto]

Just to clarify: Literal concealment of treasure is not a big issue in most (not merely the sample) 1E modules. It probably would not be very telling even if frequent, if we are assuming the leisure to get at everything in the first place.

What could make a very significant difference is how predictable it is that players shall encounter in the first place a source of XP, and in the second place actually score the points. That is rather more predictable, I think, when

-- scenarios are so linear that characters can scarcely avoid stumbling onto the monsters
-- the encounters are carefully calculated to be "appropriate" challenges
-- simply defeating the monsters secures the XP

Because the apparent bigger issue (at least to some) is the impression in some quarters that characters in 3E tend to advance more rapidly than characters in 1E, this is a question that goes beyond modules.

The (1st ed.) Advanced game, as text and as tradition, is concerned not only, or even primarily, with mere modules but with full-fledged dungeons, as described in the previous works with which familiarity is largely assumed (with dungeons via play, if not with the books via reading). If most play follows that model, then its nature is not conducive to calculations of the sort at hand.

Is there such a disjunction between, say, Sunless Citadel and what is normative 3E play? To what degree are the old concepts current, in the books and in the culture? To what degree does the very necessity for such terms as "sandbox" and "mega-dungeon" reflect a shift in norms?

There might even be different trends when comparing the whole field of modules for each game, although I think the form itself almost of necessity imposes certain constraints.

 

[billd91]

And it is entirely irrelevant. The volume of treasure that is "hidden" in 1e modules is trivial, and T1 clearly demonstrates this.

T1 clearly demonstrates that the volume of treasure hidden in T1 is relatively trivial. It demonstrates no more than that.

 

[billd91]

The only objective way to have any meaningful comparison between different editions is to count every bit of treasure and every bit of xp. It cannot be assumed that a party running through a third edition module will, across the board, garner a greater proportion of the available treasure and experience than would a party running through a first edition module.

I think Quasqueton's methodology is sound.

It's an interesting comparison, but if someone tries to use it to interpret that 1e characters necessarily advanced as fast as 3e characters, then they are using Q's methodology wrong. Characters, under optimal treasure conditions, could advance at a similar rate for a number of modules. This includes one major assumption - that treasure was obtained and removed at a rate comparable to the kill rate of the dungeon denizens. While there was no reason to assume that the kill rate would differ significantly between 1e and 3e, that's only part of the story for 1e characters that must be considered if you really do want to compare rates of advancement between 1e and 3e.

In other words, using Q's data to compare advancement rates assumes maximum kill rates for both editions AND a maximum treasure removal rate for 1e. And that injects more error into the mix on the 1e calculations that should be recognized.

 

[Hussar]

The thing that ALWAYS gets lost in this discussion is the fact that Q did NOT include the xp for magical treasure in the calculations. Not at all.

Considering that a single +1 sword, when sold, netted what, 2500 gp and thus 2500 xp, and you could find multiple +1 swords, any loss of cash would be more than made up for by the magic items.

I recall actually bumping a level based solely on our magical treasure after playing through the G series.

You can complain about the methodology all you like, but the fact that Q's estimate is probably low by at least half for the 1e modules, pretty much clinches any nit picking over whether or not they find the 300 gp gem in something's gullet.

 

[Storm Raven]

What could make a very significant difference is how predictable it is that players shall encounter in the first place a source of XP, and in the second place actually score the points. That is rather more predictable, I think, when

-- scenarios are so linear that characters can scarcely avoid stumbling onto the monsters
-- the encounters are carefully calculated to be "appropriate" challenges
-- simply defeating the monsters secures the XP.

As to the first, most 1e modules were incredibly linear. Free-for-all sandboxes like B2: Keep on the Borderlands (which was a Basic module to begin with) were much rarer than linear railroads like C1: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan or A3: Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords.

The others seem to be not particularly telling to me. Most encounters in old modules are "appropriate", as much as in newer modules, especially since the newer modules often tried to incorporate challenges that were "too tough" for the recommended levels of the adventure (such as the roper encounter in The Forge of Fury.

In my experience, anything not nailed down was likely to be looted. If the treasure was there, the adventurers would probably take it with them. Saying "they had to take the treasure too" is not a very persuasive argument, since adventurers pretty much did that reflexively.

Because the apparent bigger issue (at least to some) is the impression in some quarters that characters in 3E tend to advance more rapidly than characters in 1E, this is a question that goes beyond modules.

I believe for the most part that impression is derived from three sources: (1) people used house rules in 1e to eliminate the XP gain from treasure (or merely reduced the amount of treasure called for), (2) people remember 1e with rose-colored glasses, and (3) people remember advancements rates in 2e more clearly, where treasure did not equate to XP.

And I think the thing is that 2e is the outlier in D&D editions for the rate of expected advancement. XP for treasure was abolished in the rule set, but nothing was done to alter the XP from defeating opponents, resulting in a vastly slower advancement rate than 1e or even OD&D had. And people got used to that. On the other hand, from many accounts, 2e was the least commercially successful edition of the game.

The (1st ed.) Advanced game, as text and as tradition, is concerned not only, or even primarily, with mere modules but with full-fledged dungeons, as described in the previous works with which familiarity is largely assumed (with dungeons via play, if not with the books via reading). If most play follows that model, then its nature is not conducive to calculations of the sort at hand.

Huh? What do you think most 1e modules were other than "full-fledged dungeons"?

 

[Storm Raven]

T1 clearly demonstrates that the volume of treasure hidden in T1 is relatively trivial. It demonstrates no more than that.

I've said this before, and I'll repeat myself here: show us the 1e module with substantial amounts of its treasure hidden. Until you do, there's nothing backing up the assertion that 1e modules had lots of hidden treasure.

All we have on the "1e treausre was hard to find!" side of the argument now is a buch of grognards mad that 3e comes off relatively well in a comparison to "old school" gaming howling on without providing any support for their position. Provide the data to support your position and it will be more persuasive than it is now.

Because right now, the grognard argument has a persuasive value of zero, and falling.

 

[AllisterH]

How about we tackle another adventure?

B3: Palace of the Silver Princess (I'm up to help). Reason why I choose this one is because everyone has access to it and it is something of a well known but not extensively played module I suspect among those of us who played 1e modules.

 

[Ariosto]

Most 1e modules were incredibly linear.

What do you think most 1e modules were other than "full-fledged dungeons"?

I think they were dungeon modules. "A good dungeon," per The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, "will have no less than a dozen levels down, with offshoot levels in addition, and new levels under construction so that players will never grow tired of it."

The original Basic Set's sample cross-section showed 7 levels (the seventh an underground lake or sea with a domed city in its midst); the text noted that the introductory module (In Search of the Unknown) "will be usable for initial adventuring as well as provide ideas for dungeon construction", to which end the Dungeon Geomorphs were also recommended. The sample floor plan in the rule book was indicated as being but "Part of First Level" of the dungeons of Zenopus.

The 1E Dungeon Masters Guide, addressed as it was to "advanced" players, largely took for granted familiarity with the essentials of D&D. Those lacking such acquaintance might note, though, that the Dungeon Random Monster Level Determination Matrix (p. 174) extends to dungeon levels "16th and down."

 

[Ariosto]

Strictly speaking, most 1E "modules" were tournament or other scenarios that might provide (in pieces) grist for the mill of creating what the DMG called "your main dungeon", but were as written really another species altogether.

... challenges that were "too tough" for the recommended levels of the adventure (such as the roper encounter in The Forge of Fury.

The scenario was for levels 3-6. A "very difficult" (NOT "too tough") encounter is EL 1-4 higher than party level. A roper is a CR 10 monster, a single such being indicated as appropriate for EL 9, 10 or 11.

 

[Storm Raven]

The 1E Dungeon Masters Guide, addressed as it was to "advanced" players, largely took for granted familiarity with the essentials of D&D. Those lacking such acquaintance might note, though, that the Dungeon Random Monster Level Determination Matrix (p. 174) extends to dungeon levels "16th and down."

I think it interesting to note that the only published adventures that seem to comport with this definition were produced well after the 1e era (i.e Undermountain, which was for 2e, and produced in several installments; Castle Whiterock and World's Largest Dungeon produced for 3e).

And practice doesn't seem to match with your assertions, even in the text of the 1e DMG. Yes, the random monster tables go to "Level 16", but this is not necessarily a literal "16 levels of dungeon are needed" thing. As pointed out in the first pages of the DMG (if I recall correctly), the word "level" means many things, and when applied to a monster it does not mean "level of the dungeon". But the DMG gives all kinds of rules for overland travel, moving between encounter areas, and other things. Gygax's examples of early play often feature the Castle Greyhawk dungeon, but more often they do not.

The idea that modules aren't proper dungeons is simply so bizarre it is almost impossible to conceive of how silly a position that it. Especially when you consider that many modules formed a linked series of adventures that would fit the kind of scenario you assert as being necessary for a "proper dungeon", albeit often in multiple locations. If you think that is a big distinguishing characteristic, then I can only say your argument seems to be based entirely on semantics and is one I would consider to be entirely irrelevant.

Because the question is why would this matter? Characters in the modules advance as the designers of the game presumably thought people should advance, no matter where they adventure. Why would it be substantially different if they were making repeated forays into Castle Greyhawk or driving their way though All That Glitters?