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

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes certain message board rhetorical techniques (hysterics, pedantry) are called for, I think you'll agree.

Frequently, making sure that people are on the same page in terms of terminology (pedantry) is called for....especially when two meanings of a term are conflated as though they meant the same thing.

(For example, when one imagines that the relationship between XP and level is as direct in 1e and 3e, which is not the case, as 1e has rules limiting how XP can turn into level advancement, such as training, that 3e does not.)

If I thought hysterics were a called for rhetorical technique, though, I'd not have apologized in the other thread.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

(For example, when one imagines that the relationship between XP and level is as direct in 1e and 3e, which is not the case, as 1e has rules limiting how XP can turn into level advancement, such as training, that 3e does not.)

Is there any 1e adventure presented in this thread in which the PCs would not have the ability to undertake training when called for?

I thought not.

(I'll also note that another very common house rule in 1e was to eliminate training costs and time).

 

[Raven Crowking]

This I look forward to. But I have to wonder why you would bother given the following:

Since you're writing your own RPG, and prefer it over AD&D1 and 3d, why does it matter what the rate of advancement is in AD&D1 vs. 3e D&D? It sounds to me like you've solved the problem.

My concern here is over revisionist history.

Also, this thread came up in one of those "If your DM wants to run it like 1e, tell him it's changed. If he thinks it should be more like 1e, tell him nothing's changed." arguements. Frankly, I am not impressed by this sort of "reasoning".

Thank you for your answer.

Thanks for your civility!

Umm, why was this thread resurrected?

I think it was more "Oh hey, if I stir up some controversy, maybe people will download the game in my .sig", to be honest.

ST, you might want to check who resurrected the thread before making remarks like this.

Just saying.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

The word "level" means many things, and when applied to a monster it does not mean "level of the dungeon".

Indeed. In the context of that table, monster levels are not on the Arabic number scale but on the Roman I through X. For instance, the normal range of encounters on the 2nd-3rd dungeon levels is with monster levels I through V.

 

[Storm Raven]

My concern here is over revisionist history.

Also, this thread came up in one of those "If your DM wants to run it like 1e, tell him it's changed. If he thinks it should be more like 1e, tell him nothing's changed." arguements. Frankly, I am not impressed by this sort of "reasoning".

Where is the revisonist history in this analysis? Are you truly surprised that in 1e PCs would level fast anough that they would be of an appropriate level to meet the challenges in the next step of a series of adventures (i.e. T1-8, UK1-3, and so on)?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are the one who decided to cite a completely useless and incoherent comparison as something significant. When you compare apples to buicks don't be surprised if people make fun of the comparison.

Storm Raven, the next time I read a post from you that seems to actually contribute to the conversation, I will respond to you directly. Until then, well, you know why I haven't responded.

BTW, for those who are interested, there is a wonderful thread by Melan somewhere on EN World (I will see if I can find the link) that examines the structure of older module maps vs. newer ones.

One thing it demonstrates most clearly is that you are far, far less likely to hit every spot on many of the older maps than you are on many of the later ones. This isn't a universal truth, though.....some of the early 3e maps are wonderfully complex.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Why would it be substantially different if they were making repeated forays into Castle Greyhawk?

Because the space in that case would be one with a countless number of possible paths through it even on a single occasion -- and an even greater number of possible "stories" considering the changes in that dynamic environment between one expedition and the next.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, the next time I read a post from you that seems to actually contribute to the conversation, I will respond to you directly. Until then, well, you know why I haven't responded.

Since the only contribution to the conversation you appear to be willing to accept is one that says "RC you are clearly right in your unsubstantiated arguments concerning the nature of 1e!" I'm guessing you wont be saying much of value from here on out.

Here's the thing: I've played D&D for a long time. Possibly longer than you. I played OD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e. I have the modules commented on in this thread, and numerous others, and your assertions concerning them and how they played are, in my experience from actual play, completely incorrect. And the position oppsing yours has been substantiated with some actual data, while yours basically amounts to howling shrieks of indignation that level advancement in 1e could be anything other than wildly slower and more difficult than 3e backed by nothing. I'll take the position backed by data that conforms to my actual play experiences with 1e, thank you very much.

 

[Storm Raven]

Because the space in that case would be one with a countless number of possible paths through it even on a single occasion -- and an even greater number of possible "stories" considering the changes in that dynamic environment between one expedition and the next.

But that has no bearing at all on the rate of expected advancement. Which makes me wonder why you think it is somehow a significant element.

I'll also note that from over a decade of playing 1e on three seperate continents, I never once found a single campaign in which the action was focused on a single mega-dungeon as you describe. I did encounter and participate in some campaigns in which published adventures were used (and some in which they were not).

I also fail to see how a single mega dungeon is somehow different from a collection of smaller dungeons. That scenario also has multiple possible paths to completion. Where is the substantive difference here?

 

[billd91]

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.

G1 and G3 both have substantial amounts of hidden treasure. Hey! That's 2 modules to 1 (T1). I guess by the logic you've been arguing, the grognards win this debate. Of course, this really goes to show that looking at a single data point (or even 2) is not very helpful when trying to determine a trend...

The treasure hauls of the A series as well as G2, G3, and the D series are futher complicated by the challenges of getting it out of the dungeon. As some of us have pointed out, not only is there the question of looting everything as the methodology assumes, but there's also the complication of moving it so that it counts for XPs.