Treasure Discussion: AD&D1, D&D3

[Quasqueton]

Already the big difference between 1E and 3E is evident: the rate of level gain, with 1E characters averaging 5th lvl after the 2 addies and the 3E team at 7th!

Before this incorrect statement gets too much traction in this discussion, I'd like to point out:

The AD&D1 party is 6th level by the end of 138 numbered encounter areas. (Half-way through one mega-module.)

The D&D3 party is 6th level by the end of 110 numbered encounter areas. (Two completed adventure modules.)

Quasqueton

 

[Janx]

That's not a particularly powerful argument against supply and demand - in effect the market determines the price over time. If the producer overshoots and prices his product too high, no one will buy it and he will be forced to lower his price if he desires to sell his product. If he prices his product too low, then a secondary resale market will probably develop (or some people will get good deals and hold on to them).

Aptly put StormRaven. I'm no expert on economics, though I did take a year of it in college. So I have a decent handle on the subject. A pre-industrial society probably emulates the secondary market that Storm Raven mentions. Basically, haggling, and less fixed price items. We're also not talking about commodities here, but presumably expensive and rare items. It is a fact that there is demand for magic items by PCs and NPCs. It is a fact that there is a supply of them in the hands of NPCs and monster treasure. Therefore those in demand will seek out those with supply. For enough money, some suppliers will be willing to sell some magic items (especially the extra +2's that they have less demand for themselves).

Tying this all to Quas's thread, if a dungeon crawl generates that much EXTRA loot (each PC only needs so many +2 items), then the PCs have excess that they would like to transform into something else they want (say +3 items). Assuming there are NPCs with similar motivations as PCs (aka adventurers), there is demand for such items, assuming they have the money to buy them. Given the difficulty of making such connections, somebody will see demand for making these connections, and thus become a middleman (aka fence, or magic item dealer).

It doesn't have to appear in your game as MagicMart shopping centers, but it makes total sense, and allows for the conversion of magic items to gold (and vice versa). Once you reach that point, as a GM, your main goal is to not hand out so much loot that PCs have magic items that are too powerful for them. Of course if that were the case (ex. a level 2 fighter with a +5 sword), a 20th level NPC with demand for a +5 sword may see a supply.

To get back on track, are the adventures Quas listed considered Monty Haul? From a 1E or 3E perspective?

Janx

 

[MerricB]

A couple of notes:

Gary has posted advancement rates before, which translate to about 1 level every 6 sessions or so for levels 1-9 in AD&D. After that, advancement slows significantly - perhaps a level every 12-20 sessions.

D&D 3e is designed around a level every 4 sessions, but - at least the way I play it - advancement seems a lot quicker: a level every 2-3 sessions at lower levels. I don't mind because my games are run fortnightly, but if I were running a weekly game, I may well be finding it "too fast". Of course, my combats seem to take less time than most groups', so that could be a contributing factor.

Another interesting factor in 1e loot is just how vulnerable it is. If the party is hit by a fireball, your items must save against magical fire regardless of whether or not you made your save or not. I'm not sure how commonly the rule was applied, but I have used it at times in my AD&D career.

There is also the problem of transport. In 3e, 50 coins weigh one pound. In 1e, 10 coins weigh one pound. Transporting treasure (especially to get XP from it!) is more difficult in 1e. There's a reason bags of holding and portable holes were so prized - especially with no magic item stores!

AD&D wealth is shown at its worst in the SSI "Gold Box" computer games, btw...

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

The modules G1, G2, amd G3 specifically said characters could level up between forays, which was contrary to AD&D's 'training' rule. Of course, in these modoles, characters really needed to level up to succeed.

those modules appeared as Tournament play first.

the conversion for use as homebrew has a lot of errors.

but you could interpret the between forays to mean anything. even after teleporting using the cheesy mechanism written into the modules...

 

[diaglo]

Before this incorrect statement gets too much traction in this discussion, I'd like to point out:

The AD&D1 party is 6th level by the end of 138 numbered encounter areas. (Half-way through one mega-module.)

The D&D3 party is 6th level by the end of 110 numbered encounter areas. (Two completed adventure modules.)

Quasqueton

and in both cases some of the encouters are ruled 0xp for killing the monsters(NPCs). that means their treasure too in the 1edADnD case.

there was a penalty in 1edADnD for bad roleplay which played out in training.

there was also a penalty for all PCs who changed or caused problems with their alignment.

 

[MerricB]

those modules appeared as Tournament play first.

the conversion for use as homebrew has a lot of errors.

but you could interpret the between forays to mean anything. even after teleporting using the cheesy mechanism written into the modules...

Have you played or DMed those adventures with oD&D, diaglo?

What is the ratio between monster XP and treasure XP in a regular AD&D campaign, anyway? I normally think the ratio tips greatly towards treasure, but it's been so long since I've played a serious game (and my "let's have fun with 1e White Plume Mountain" game last week showed a significant portion of XP from the monsters.)

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

there was a penalty in 1edADnD for bad roleplay which played out in training.

I always found that penalty really interesting. (Bad roleplaying includes magic-users engaging in melee rather than casting spells - can't disagree there! ) I don't think I ever used the rule - though I tended to play more AD&D than DM it.

Cheers!

 

[maggot]

Interesting analysis, keep up the work. I didn't see where you explained how you came up with the 3E XP total. 3E XP is based on the current party level, so as the party goes up levels the XP goes down. Rather significant in an adventure where the characters go from 3rd to 6th.

 

[diaglo]

Have you played or DMed those adventures with oD&D, diaglo?

What is the ratio between monster XP and treasure XP in a regular AD&D campaign, anyway? I normally think the ratio tips greatly towards treasure, but it's been so long since I've played a serious game (and my "let's have fun with 1e White Plume Mountain" game last week showed a significant portion of XP from the monsters.)

Cheers!

i converted them for use in my OD&D campaign.

treasure Xp in the 1edADnD side is more for sure than monster xp if the party gets their hands on it.

encounters being the biggest problem. the party wondering if they made too much noise or what will be coming to find out about the monsters they just slew.

searching for treasure took time... valuable life or death time.

 

[Quasqueton]

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.

D&D3 characters do level up a bit faster than AD&D1 characters, but not extremely. D&D3 leveling might be ~20% faster, by the written adventures. (Although will this rate continue when we compare higher level adventures?) 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?

Quasqueton