Treasure Discussion: AD&D1, D&D3

[Quasqueton]

are the adventures Quas listed considered Monty Haul? From a 1E or 3E perspective?

The AD&D1 adventures I'm getting data from are written by Gary Gygax, himself. (The ToEE is by EGG and Frank Mentzer.) But The Queen of the Demonweb Pits is by. . . [I'll have to go pull out the module to refresh my memory], with EGG's blessing/approval. So, essentially they can be considered the baseline/standard of what adventure modules should be for their edition.

The D&D3 adventures are the original core adventure path series, so again, they can be considered the baseline/standard of what adventure modules should be for their edition.

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.

Yes, this was a stumbling block for me. I'm using some educated assumptions on what the PCs' levels would be at a certain point in the adventure. I'm erring on the lower-level side, so it is quite possible the D&D3 characters are getting a bit more xp than they would if the DM were awarding the xp in "real time".

Combing the above with not including the xp value of magic items for the AD&D1 characters, this data is probably skewing a bit toward actual slower advancement for the AD&D1 team and faster for the D&D3 team. So this consideration adds to my view that the D&D3 characters don't advance all that much faster than the AD&D1 characters. Some faster, by the book, in actual play, yes. A lot faster? Not really. I'm thinking 25% faster, *at most* -- by the written rules and adventures. [So when the AD&D1 characters hit 15th level, the D&D3 characters may be hitting 20th level. I'm interested to see if this hypothesis holds out when the data reaches those levels.] A DM's style and choices can really affect the advancement rate dramatically, in both editions.

Quasqueton

 

[dcollins]

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.

Ok, thank you for fnally posting the analysis

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I think a key issue is "how much of the maximum 1E treasure did parties actually find?" As others pointed out, it was frequently devilishly hidden, and not actually expected to be found much of the time. This made for great variation obviously; 3E expects that if you beat the monster, you must get a fixed (smaller) treasure. My recollection is that Gygax assumed about a 1:4 ratio of earned monster:treasure XP (not the 1:9 in your example).

In all versions of D&D, I used the strict table-rolling treasure method, and it made me look like a very stingy DM (very high variation; skewed to lots of results with no treasure at all, i.e., median less than mean). However, one of my fondest stories was when my players lucked into finding an amazing giant bejeweled gold crown (10's of thousands of gold pieces) on a dungeon level where the entrance they used got blocked off. First they celebrated, literally dancing around the table -- then they got horrified when they came guess that they must be expected to die before they could get out with it. (Not quite, but it was a very tough fight.) That's the kind of "amazing treasure" encounter that was enjoyable in 1E that's kind of disallowed in 3E by hewing closely to the expected wealth rules.

At any rate, my understanding is that 1E had an earned monster:treasure ratio averaging 1:4, with high variation, with published treasures promoting that high variation (particular very big treasure hoards that only the luckiest of parties would find). That would skew the leveling difference from 1E/3E towards MerricB's (more generally accepted) rate of 6/4 or 6/3.

 

[Quasqueton]

The Moathouse's "devilishly hidden" treasure:

1- in the belly of a giant frog = a 100gp gem

2- "the brigands have buried a chest. . . Three turns of digging" = 265gp value, +1 arrows (x4)

3- "in the litter of its nesting" = 850gp value

4- In a lone wall cresset, a "nondescript torch stub is a silver baton" = 30gp value

5- "[The giant lizard] has previously swallowed a shield +1, easily found if appropriate actions are taken after the battle." = +1 shield

6- "hidden behind a loose stone" = 500gp value

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

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

9- in the "mess" of a ghoul nest = 40gp value, 1 potion, 1 scroll

10- "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber = 15,000gp piece of jewelry [Is this actually "hidden", in the context of this discussion?]

Total of 3,785 gp value (out of 30,938gp) not immediately or obviously discoverable. Plus a 15,000gp piece of jewelry "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber, which "If seriously threatened, Lareth will offer all his non-magical treasures---jewelry, coins, and all else---as ransom for his life."

Quasqueton

 

[Numion]

Hidden treasure is not an unique feature of 1E. The second adventure path (Shackled City) has quite a lot of hidden treasure in the first adventures.

It's very nice to see a quantative analysis of the things 1E crowd seems to throw as 'facts', when they aren't.

 

[Melan]

Quasqueton: of this list, Lareth's treasure and the items in the ghoul lair could by no means be called hidden. The rest - well, I am sure most of them wouldn't be found by all but a more resourceful party. Lareth's monetary treasure is the biggest haul in the entire module, and it is a very valuable find: a group of eight PCs, assuming all of them survive (unlikely, Lareth & Co are a mean bunch), would gain 1875 XP and 1875 gp per person. Along with previous rewards, most 1st level PCs would be eligible to gain a level, maybe second level ones as well. (In first, but not second edition AD&D, experience comes from treasure first and anything else second. Killing treasure-less monsters is usually not worth the hassle!)

Assuming a DM who isn't a hardass about "assessing" the performance of his players (as the DMG helpfully suggests) and considers everyone's performance "Excellent", first level PCs would actually be able to gain a level for 1500 gp... And have 375 left over, plus other treasure they could recover and liquidate. On the other hand, a second level PC or a PC with a "Superior" rating would have to pay 2*1500, or 3000 gp for the privilege, a 1st level PC with a "Fair" rating would have to pay 3*1500, or 4500 gp, whereas a 2nd level PC with a "Superior" rating would need 2*2*1500, or 6000 gp!

As you can see, there is a use for all that treasure. It is gained in excess, but leaves the campaign at a speedy rate and in great quantities as well. Trouble starts when and if a DM doesn't use the DMG's training rules. Absent such a system, monetary rewards should be lowered (IMC, 500 gp would be considered a very good catch for a session's worth of play - I don't use the training rules, and dole out treasure accordingly) or another way devised to part PCs and gps. As an example, I usually let my players sacrifice huge quantities of valuables to the gods and gain one-use spells, blessings and similar boons.

 

[jasper]

People talk about the devilish hidden stuff. HA ha ha. Yeah right. Most players I gamed with would room broom the whole dungeon. Each room would be check and rechecked and monsters were gutted to see if they had anything or if it could be made into material components. The pc would be cover in greasy grimy guts but no flies would land on them. So the hidden stuff should be included.

Some have mentioned the training rules but those were hard to work in if you want to be fair to all the pcs. How can the illusionist train when he deep in the heart of Texas near Alamo and the higher illusionist is in New Orleans? After various groups of game playing with training rules all the GMs dropped them while dropping the gp and other treasure.

 

[harmyn]

In a btb discussion of treasure comparisons you need to include the training rules as a means of eating up the PCs wealth. So that will remove a nice chunk of that hard earned cash. And if you don't get training, you can't advance (as the rules were written). I know many GMs and groups did away with the training rules; even I did in my later (post high school) games. But the treasure amounts were written with that extra cost in mind.

Also, I don't recall seeing anyone ever list the value of the gear for the 3e villains. The comment made stated that it was used in NPC wealth calculation for CR purposes and so doesn't belong in the treasure lists. I disagree. If you use this logic do you not allow your PCs to strip and loot the bad guys? If they are then that is definitely treasure and should be included in the calculations here. Someone mentioned that it was SOP for their group to sweep every room. The game taught us that because of all the hidden loot you would pass by if you didn't. This attitude still exists in many groups today, and most players given a chance will take everything the villain owns if given half a chance.

So back to the NPC wealth carried, how much is there and how does it affect the wealth involved in the newer modules?

 

[Joshua Randall]

I know many GMs and groups did away with the training rules; even I did in my later (post high school) games. But the treasure amounts were written with that extra cost in mind.

But did 1eAD&D have any actual numerical guidelines regarding how much wealth was appropriate for a given group's level? I don't think there was anything like that.

One of 3e's huge improvements is the linking of CR / XP / treasure / level. There are flaws with it, sure, but it's better to have some guidelines than nothing at all.

I'm glad Quasqueton has posted his research, because it has given us some actual numbers to chew on, instead of vague recollections from 20 years ago. I think these two points are critically important:

Magic items were not rarer in AD&D1 than they are in D&D3.

D&D3 characters do level up a bit faster than AD&D1 characters, but not extremely. [...] 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).

Two of the biggest complaints that people make about 3e compared to AD&D are that 3e gives out too much magic and 3e lets PCs level up too fast. But as Quasqueton has shown, those complaints are without merit.

 

[diaglo]

Two of the biggest complaints that people make about 3e compared to AD&D are that 3e gives out too much magic and 3e lets PCs level up too fast. But as Quasqueton has shown, those complaints are without merit.

i wouldn't say biggest complaints. but i would agree with you that they come up often in discussions about the two editions.

others include: healing, save vs death, stat progression, multiclassing, rolling vs point buy, and many many many more.


apple vs orange.

if you take point by point out of the context of the whole.

i'm glad Q has addressed some of these things though.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

But did 1eAD&D have any actual numerical guidelines regarding how much wealth was appropriate for a given group's level? I don't think there was anything like that.

Not per se, but there were treasure guidelines for specific monsters, (Dragons=type "H", for example) and those monsters were only appropriate for PC's of certain levels. So you ended up at the same place, but by different means.