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

[Raven Crowking]

Note RC, you are taking the 4 sessions thing as a literal statement.

No. "Around four sessions" means an average of four sessions. One time it might be 3, one time it might be 5, another time it might be 1, and yet another time it might be 6, but the expectation is the average.

Likewise, when Gary said that a character should reach around 10th level in the same period, he might be 9th, or 6th, or 13th., but the expectation is the average.

There is no value in pulling up quotes stating what the designers expected to be the average, and then denying them simply because, when examined, they prove not to be what either you nor I expected.

As I said 13 and 10 are pretty close. Not a huge variance anyway.

I said as much. I expected 15 and 10. Those numbers are different than what I was espousing.

I guess the most accurate conclusion would be: Leveling in 1e and 3e, assuming that you play pretty close by the rules, will result in very similar leveling over the first ten levels or so.

No, the most accurate conclusion would be: Leveling in 1e and 3e, assuming that you meet the designer expectations, will result in the 3e character gaining 1.3 levels for every level gained by the 1e character.

BTW, it has been noted in this thread that Gary didn't use the training rules, and, if this is true, then one would have to assume that if you play pretty close by the rules, the 1e character will in fact level more slowly than Gary's expectations would indicate. Now, barring a linked quote from Gary, I am willing to assume that he did use the training rules, and that the "1.3 to 1" ratio is accurate (rather than my expected 1.5 to 1 ratio).

Removing the numbers doesn't making the conclusion more (but rather less) accurate, just as a recipe saying "1 tsp" is more accurate than a recipe saying "a small amount".

And I certainly don't expect anyone else on this thread to say, "Hmmmm.....those numbers look different than what I was espousing", because, frankly, this is the InterWeb, and it is apparently a great loss of honour to do so.




RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

2e is the real outlier, with no xp for gold. In many ways, 3e was a return to an earlier style of play. Less emphasis on story and setting, back to the dungeon and good clean monster bashing fun just like Gary used to make.

The longest D&D campaign I've played in was a 2e game. It went on for years and we got to, I think, 7th level by the end. Damn, that game was boring.

 

[Raven Crowking]

2e is the real outlier, with no xp for gold. In many ways, 3e was a return to an earlier style of play. Less emphasis on story and setting, back to the dungeon and good clean monster bashing fun

If you stop here, we agree, excepting that "xp for gold" isn't part of WotC-D&D (although it was part of the XP scheme in 2e, albeit just for rogues, if memory serves).

Gary wasn't happy with 3e, but AFAICT, the unhappiness was largely due to a combination of "big rulesification", break from traditional sources (pokemounts, artwork), and (perhaps most seriously) loss of control over his baby and bitterness over how that happened.

I think that 3e offered a lot of good things to the game, which is why my own ruleset isn't a "retro-clone", but rather a "fusion" of what I think is good in both the old-school movement and the SRD.


RC

 

[Hussar]

BTW, it has been noted in this thread that Gary didn't use the training rules, and, if this is true, then one would have to assume that if you play pretty close by the rules, the 1e character will in fact level more slowly than Gary's expectations would indicate. Now, barring a linked quote from Gary, I am willing to assume that he did use the training rules, and that the "1.3 to 1" ratio is accurate (rather than my expected 1.5 to 1 ratio).

I've noticed this get mentioned once or twice and I'm sorry, my 1e rules-fu isn't all that good.

Why would training rules slow down advancement? You still got the xp for money even though you spend it - it's not like you have to keep it in order to keep the xp. I could see it adding some in game time, but, why would it slow down leveling?

 

[billd91]

I've noticed this get mentioned once or twice and I'm sorry, my 1e rules-fu isn't all that good.

Why would training rules slow down advancement? You still got the xp for money even though you spend it - it's not like you have to keep it in order to keep the xp. I could see it adding some in game time, but, why would it slow down leveling?

In early levels, you may not have the money to pay for your training. That means you have to adventure for more money, likely qualifying for XPs you'll lose, particularly if you manage to get enough XPs to reach the next level. You'll be stuck at (XP for next level) - 1 and unable to gain any more, no matter what you kill or what treasure you find, until that training obligation is complete.

Meanwhile, leaving the adventure site to train for at least a week may change the state of the adventure site. If you've been running roughshod over the opposition, they'll probably leave and take any loot they can grab with them. Lost opportunities depending on how static the DM leaves the adventure in the PCs' absence.

These factors assume that training is even possible in the environment. In a place not far from a good-sized city - the dungeons under Greyhawk - training would be easy because friendly trainers would abound. In a hostile environment like the Pomarj where the A series takes place, this is a bit harder. Again, you may be adventuring at a frozen level and XP amount, unable to take care of your training obligations.

Those are a few major issues with not being able to simply "ding" up a level when your XP meter hits the right amount.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In early levels, you may not have the money to pay for your training. That means you have to adventure for more money, likely qualifying for XPs you'll lose, particularly if you manage to get enough XPs to reach the next level. You'll be stuck at (XP for next level) - 1 and unable to gain any more, no matter what you kill or what treasure you find, until that training obligation is complete.

Caveat.

"(XP for next level) - 1" means the level after the one you have XP for, so that a level 1 character can gain XP to reach level 3, less 1 XP. However, if I remember correctly, there is a significant catch.

If you gain enough XP in any session to reach "(XP for next level) - 1", they you are stuck there.

If you gain enough XP to gain the next level, but less that "(XP for next level) - 1", you are stuck there instead. Once you've received XP, and can gain another level, you can gain no further XP until you do so, but the XP you received can put you almost at the next level from the one you need to train for.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I certainly don't expect anyone else on this thread to say, "Hmmmm.....those numbers look different than what I was espousing", because, frankly, this is the InterWeb, and it is apparently a great loss of honour to do so.

I am not at all surprised to be correct here (at least thus far).


RC

 

[ST]

RC just isn't going to drop this until someone says he's right so: You're right, you win, thank you for your expert analysis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let us just say that I am not at all surprised by the hypocrisy, ST.

 

[Umbran]

RC just isn't going to drop this until someone says he's right so: You're right, you win, thank you for your expert analysis.

Let us just say that I am not at all surprised by the hypocrisy, ST.

Right. Not 30 posts back, I warned a couple of people to stop butting heads.

Now we get this personal nonsense?

This is why we cannot have nice things on this board. With 18 pages in this thread, I think it has run its course.

THUNK. Thread closed.