Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Plane Sailing]

Now that you mention it, you're probably the "some DMs" I'm remembering.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the NPC age/profession chart. How do you transfer the PC's spending of treasure into a standard for NPCs?

I forget the details but it was something like

Peasants spend 10gp/week (equivalent)

Townsmen spend 30gp/week

Nobles spend 100gp/week

After giving an arbitrary starting age of 16 at 1st level, I could see that a peasant fighter who was 3rd level and needed (say) 4000xp would have taken 400 weeks to reach that level, and would thus be about 24 years old. The noble fighter who was 3rd level would have only taken 40 weeks and would be about 17.

A 40 year old peasant could have spent his way to 13,520 xps. A 40 year old townsman could be at 40,560 and a 40 year old noble at 135,200 xps

I made a little chart with level along the top and social class down the side, and the intersection gave me an approximate age.

Not all NPCs would have spent the maximum amount, but (especially with the way the xp charts went in 1e) it was quite possible for nobles to be 'name level' NPCs, although it almost impossible to "spend" their way past that.

Cheers

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unfortunately, the Monster Manual specifically states that the treasure type is based on the mean number of monsters (equal to the average in this case).

Cheers!

There were a lot of changes to the system between the publication of the MM and the DMG, though, weren't there? A corrected version of the MM would have been nice.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What a really clever idea! The best way I have heard in ages to make players have "watrel" characters (as, for example, Conan was in the comics).

Or, for example, if a PC earns a reward, but chooses not to accept that. That counts as money squandered in RCFG. So, the mechanic can be used to create wastrels or more traditionally "good" characters.


RC

 

[MerricB]

There were a lot of changes to the system between the publication of the MM and the DMG, though, weren't there? A corrected version of the MM would have been nice.


RC

Honestly, in this case I think the MM is correct.

Cheers!

 

[Garthanos]

Indeed. Having asked if a rationale was ever given, and having been referred to where it was given, one would think "thank you" a more appropriate as a response.


RC

No "The DMG" would have been where I would have assumed it was (if there was a reason ). So the answer was not particularly useful and is less so because any access I may have had has long passed...

If the rationale is something obscure/lame enough that it isnt quotable.. AND "to encourage theft" sounds like an honest answer to what it actually was... did the DMG own up to that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honestly, in this case I think the MM is correct.

Much like the 4e DMG1 description of skill challenges should take precedence over the later 4e DMG2?

No "The DMG" would have been where I would have assumed it was (if there was a reason ). So the answer was not particularly useful and is less so because any access I may have had has long passed...

If the rationale is something obscure/lame enough that it isnt quotable.. AND "to encourage theft" sounds like an honest answer to what it actually was... did the DMG own up to that?

You asked if there was a rationale. The answer is yes, in the 1e DMG. The rationale is longer than I feel like typing. It is gamist, if that helps, based upon providing players with motivation to interact with the game world.

If you want to read it, you might be able to check a copy out of your local library. If not, the 1e DMG is a very useful book, in terms of its lists of features, unexplained sounds, etc., even if you are not playing the edition it was written for. Also, there is discussion of many topics, many of which can provide real inspiration regardless of the game you are playing.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Was a rationale ever provided?

The rationale is in the 1e DMG.

"because X said so" is only a reason if you are talking to 4 year olds ... or something like that. (you might guess I am not religious).

Having asked if a rationale was ever given, and having been referred to where it was given, one would think "thank you" a more appropriate as a response.

No

Perhaps this is not the way you meant to sound?


RC

 

[Garthanos]

Perhaps this is not the way you meant to sound?


RC

Excessively literal ... take the first one and add "if so what was it?"

Then realize "in the DMG" is a really big location... you just said read the bible to find out what it is.(this time the reference is book size).'

Ever ask?
"Can I go to the store" and the answer was "Sure you can! your legs aren't broke, but you will have to get permission from me first"

I guess I shouldnt have assumed you were being intensionally uninformative because you didnt catch the implied question (regarding what the authoritative reasoning was). You did subsequently "characterize" it .

 

[MerricB]

Much like the 4e DMG1 description of skill challenges should take precedence over the later 4e DMG2?

No, because I think that Gygax was at his worst when compiling the DMG. There's much that is good in the DMG, but there's a lot of it which is pretty lousy - mostly anything to do with explaining rules.

I'd trust that quote more if Gygax was in the middle of explaining hard and fast rules about treasure distribution, but he isn't.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Excessively literal ... take the first one and add "if so what was it?"

It seems odd to me that you have such a firm opinion of a work you have so loose a grasp on.

Then realize "in the DMG" is a really big location... you just said read the bible to find out what it is.(this time the reference is book size).'

And this isn't the first time you've brought religion into it. It seems to me that, perhaps, there is some other issue which is as formulative to your opinion of 1e as anything related to 1e itself.

No, because I think that Gygax was at his worst when compiling the DMG. There's much that is good in the DMG, but there's a lot of it which is pretty lousy - mostly anything to do with explaining rules.

So, despite obviously being aware of what is written in the MM, and despite obviously being aware that this was going to be seen by some as a contradiction in the rules, you feel that Gygax wasn't aware of what was written in the MM and didn't intend the advice in the DMG to take precedence over that in the MM?



We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'd trust that quote more if Gygax was in the middle of explaining hard and fast rules about treasure distribution, but he isn't.

No, he is in the middle of explaining the spirit of the rules. The thing which, repeatedly, he admonishes the DM to consider as more important than hard and fast rules.

I have to admit that I find your position here more than a little strange.


RC