|
|
Post by Porphyre on Nov 26, 2014 12:47:44 GMT -6
I remember I had the players roll for "random" treasure when they found some, rather than determining it beforehand myself.
It did slow the game a little, but I never had a player complaining about rolling for loot (the results of the roll, however... )
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 26, 2014 12:47:56 GMT -6
Nowadays it is fairly simple to program a computer to perform this rolling for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 12:55:21 GMT -6
When was the first computerized treasure table made?
As far as a balance between random and designed treasure goes, D&D 3e had the best system. Each encounter had a base GP value (a first level encounter is worth 300 gp, a 9th level one is worth 4,500 gp, etc) and this treasure is then distributed across the dungeon and either rolled randomly or spent on what ever the DM wants; coins, jewels, magic items etc. The effect of the whole thing was similar to how Gary described allocating treasure in the AD&D DMG.
Other than those in B/X and Bushido, I haven't found old school treasure tables to be of much use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 26, 2014 15:13:24 GMT -6
I agree with Geoffrey's interpretation; the assumption is that the ref will plan whatever rooms he or she wants - thoughtfully placing treasure, monster, traps, etc. This can be supplemented with the random rolls. I agree with Aldarron, however, that rolling is just friggin' tedious! I initially thought it would be better to randomly generate my dungeons, so that I would know I was getting the "true D&D experience." But it was so mind numbing trying to generate 40 or 50 rooms randomly. Getting a treasure result for a room was awful, because it meant that many more rolls! I have to roll to see if gold is present, and then how much, then likewise for gems AND jewelry, and then magic treasure. And on the lower levels, the odds of getting anything interesting are very small. So I would vastly prefer just choosing the results. It is far, far faster to do so, and much less tedious. On the other hand, if you have a computer algorithm to assist (and I realize there are random dungeon generators), then that could be fun to play with. Even still, I find random results unsatisfactory much of the time. Good point. I've always read the passage as Geoffrey describes it, and rereading it I'm still pretty sure the intent is to say that the tables are there when you just don't have the time or energy to thoughtfully place your own encounters ('thoughtfully' being the key word there). However, I also understand what Aldarron means in regards to how cumbersome the tables actually are if you strictly rely on them. Really, the most efficient method is to use them in combination: freely design as much as you can, and when you start loosing pace trying to come up with creative ideas turn to the tables. Or, how I generally do it: start with the tables, and use those to kickstart your inspiration, where the free design can take over. Personally, I really enjoy entirely random treasures, and in AD&D does them well enough that I try to stick to it there as much as possible. But, especially now as I'll be introducing some people to OD&D, the wholly random method would feel underwhelming to say the least. If I had stuck strictly to the rolls in the first dungeon areas, for example, the major lair would have naught but 2,000 copper in the hoard, and the single magic item to be found in all three level 1-ish areas would be a -2 cursed sword with 12 Intelligence & 10 Ego. Those curveballs might have entertained a group of veterans on their umpteenth campaign, but I certainly wouldn't throw that at anyone new, or who wanted an 'authentic' D&D experience. |
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 26, 2014 15:50:12 GMT -6
I prefer the combo approach. I set the majority of the encounters/treasure, but do not give up on the random rolls completely. There are certain magic items that assume random rolls. A stone of luck , for example, modifies random treasure rolls in the owners favor. So if a player has one, I'll use them more frequently.
I can't remember the last time I rolled a dungeon treasure. It's always outdoor hex crawling. Once I rolled a holy avenger and a sword of sharpness in the same hoard, and nobody in the party could use either, but they cleaned up selling them.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 26, 2014 16:44:56 GMT -6
I've always went with Geoffrey's interpretation, even though the text really doesn't specify whether placing treasures non-randomly is what's tedious, or dice-rolling on random tables is. It just seems more likely that Gygax and Arneson would assume you would use your imagination first, with a random method as a fallback, rather than the other way around.
And although I concede that Gygax and Arneson probably advised against using the Vol. 2 table for stocking dungeons, I still think it's useful if used for an entire level or sublevel, rather than a room. If nothing else, the treasure types give an idea of which magic items a monster might typically have. The big question is: when stocking treasure for a monster that isn't the dominant monster in the dungeon, do you count that as part of the full treasure hoard, or is it "extra treasure"? I lean towards the latter, and also would count unguarded (hidden or trapped) treasure as "extra", stuff left over from a previous occupant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 23:45:44 GMT -6
I initially thought it would be better to randomly generate my dungeons, so that I would know I was getting the "true D&D experience." But it was so mind numbing trying to generate 40 or 50 rooms randomly. I don't know who told you that, but it's simply wrong. D&D dungeon design was never intended to be random; the random charts were for when you were out of inspiration. This is conceptually taken directly from Free Kriegspiel, where "the umpire makes all adjudications but may have charts or tables available as an aid." |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 27, 2014 7:01:04 GMT -6
I've always went with Geoffrey's interpretation, even though the text really doesn't specify whether placing treasures non-randomly is what's tedious, or dice-rolling on random tables is. It just seems more likely that Gygax and Arneson would assume you would use your imagination first, with a random method as a fallback, rather than the other way around. Well, no. Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign is very clear about his stocking approach. ALL the original Blackmoor dungeon and wilderness areas were randomly stocked from day 1, years before D&D was published. Most of the monsters (PC baddies excepted) and ALL the normal treasures were randomly generated by tables and formula. Dave gives us those charts, tables, and formulas, throughout the FFC and shows us the results of using those tables in the keys given for Blackmoor dungeon, Glendower, Lake Gloomey and Bleakwood. Same thing with Temple of the Frog in Supp II. Random stocking was a consistent, key element of his game; the normal procedure. All the D&D stocking tables are built off of Daves, and they are still one of the few core "balance" elements of the game (others being the classes and level progression, unlike things like combat and magic which are peripheral and flexible). Historically speaking, it was certainly common for both Gary and Dave to use tables and dice for adventure generation prior to 1974. The same is true of Dave Megarry's Dungeon game. Now, Gary was very probably not as zealous about it as the Daves, but then again he did write this in the Dungeon Masters Guide, “…the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game. Potions, scrolls, arms and armor are plentiful....this is done in order to keep magic-users from totally dominating play...what they gain from the table will typically be used up and discarded {while items for fighters are permanent}....This random determination table needs no adjustment, because of it's weighting, and weighting of the MAGIC ITEMS table....this is carefully planned so as to prevent imbalance in the game." (1979: 120, 121) Plain and simple, Gary said if you don't use the tables for your treasures you will imbalance the game. And although I concede that Gygax and Arneson probably advised against using the Vol. 2 table for stocking dungeons, I still think it's useful if used for an entire level or sublevel, rather than a room. If nothing else, the treasure types give an idea of which magic items a monster might typically have. The big question is: when stocking treasure for a monster that isn't the dominant monster in the dungeon, do you count that as part of the full treasure hoard, or is it "extra treasure"? I lean towards the latter, and also would count unguarded (hidden or trapped) treasure as "extra", stuff left over from a previous occupant. Extra treasure. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 27, 2014 7:11:39 GMT -6
We are recognizing that these tables were written by Gary and/or Dave and not generated randomly, right?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 8:15:12 GMT -6
Now, Gary was very probably not as zealous about it as the Daves, but then again he did write this in the Dungeon Masters Guide, “…the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game. Potions, scrolls, arms and armor are plentiful....this is done in order to keep magic-users from totally dominating play...what they gain from the table will typically be used up and discarded {while items for fighters are permanent}....This random determination table needs no adjustment, because of it's weighting, and weighting of the MAGIC ITEMS table....this is carefully planned so as to prevent imbalance in the game." (1979: 120, 121) Plain and simple, Gary said if you don't use the tables for your treasures you will imbalance the game. When Gary mentions the MAGIC ITEMS table, he is specifically referring to Table III on that page, not to the magic item or treasure tables in general. So, 20% potions, 15% scrolls, etc, is the suggested, balanced, ratio of magic items. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 20:34:52 GMT -6
I've always went with Geoffrey's interpretation, even though the text really doesn't specify whether placing treasures non-randomly is what's tedious, or dice-rolling on random tables is. It just seems more likely that Gygax and Arneson would assume you would use your imagination first, with a random method as a fallback, rather than the other way around. Well, no. Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign is very clear about his stocking approach. ALL the original Blackmoor dungeon and wilderness areas were randomly stocked from day 1, years before D&D was published. Most of the monsters (PC baddies excepted) and ALL the normal treasures were randomly generated by tables and formula. Dave gives us those charts, tables, and formulas, throughout the FFC and shows us the results of using those tables in the keys given for Blackmoor dungeon, Glendower, Lake Gloomey and Bleakwood. Same thing with Temple of the Frog in Supp II. Random stocking was a consistent, key element of his game; the normal procedure. I PLAYED in Blackmoor. Dave sure as hell did NOT use the Volume 2 treasure tables in Blackmoor dungeon. He may have used random tables, but the actual treasures of Blackmoor were NOTHING like the treasures you'd get from the OD&D table. You can quote all the books you like; I EXPLORED the d**n place. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Nov 27, 2014 23:40:20 GMT -6
I PLAYED in Blackmoor. Dave sure as hell did NOT use the Volume 2 treasure tables in Blackmoor dungeon. He may have used random tables, but the actual treasures of Blackmoor were NOTHING like the treasures you'd get from the OD&D table. You can quote all the books you like; I EXPLORED the d**n place. Can you remember any specific treasure that Dave had in Blackmoor? What made it so different from the treasure in the od&d (or FFC) tables? |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 28, 2014 11:22:45 GMT -6
Well, no. Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign is very clear about his stocking approach. ALL the original Blackmoor dungeon and wilderness areas were randomly stocked from day 1, years before D&D was published. Most of the monsters (PC baddies excepted) and ALL the normal treasures were randomly generated by tables and formula. Dave gives us those charts, tables, and formulas, throughout the FFC and shows us the results of using those tables in the keys given for Blackmoor dungeon, Glendower, Lake Gloomey and Bleakwood. Same thing with Temple of the Frog in Supp II. Random stocking was a consistent, key element of his game; the normal procedure. I PLAYED in Blackmoor. Dave sure as hell did NOT use the Volume 2 treasure tables in Blackmoor dungeon. He may have used random tables, but the actual treasures of Blackmoor were NOTHING like the treasures you'd get from the OD&D table. You can quote all the books you like; I EXPLORED the d**n place. Yes Mike, no disagreement. The tables and formulas Dave used for Blackmoor are in the FFC in various places, not Vol. II, as you say. I talk about some of the links between what Dave did and the D&D tables in this post link if you are interested. Perhaps I didn't convey it clearly, but the point was that Dave stocked his adventures randomly and wrote a good bit about ways of doing so in the FFC, and that point was made in response to John's comment that "It just seems more likely that Gygax and Arneson would assume you would use your imagination first, with a random method as a fallback..." |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 28, 2014 12:12:39 GMT -6
Now, Gary was very probably not as zealous about it as the Daves, but then again he did write this in the Dungeon Masters Guide, “…the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game. Potions, scrolls, arms and armor are plentiful....this is done in order to keep magic-users from totally dominating play...what they gain from the table will typically be used up and discarded {while items for fighters are permanent}....This random determination table needs no adjustment, because of it's weighting, and weighting of the MAGIC ITEMS table....this is carefully planned so as to prevent imbalance in the game." (1979: 120, 121) Plain and simple, Gary said if you don't use the tables for your treasures you will imbalance the game. When Gary mentions the MAGIC ITEMS table, he is specifically referring to Table III on that page, not to the magic item or treasure tables in general. So, 20% potions, 15% scrolls, etc, is the suggested, balanced, ratio of magic items. Exactly. You got it. Spot on. And of course the Magic Items table in the DMG is the AD&D version of the OD&D Magic Items table (Vol 2:23) which in turn is from the Dalluhn Magic Items table (BK I:13) and that in turn is from Arneson's Items table (FFC 1980:61). The Magic Items table is what you roll on when you get a positive result for magic in the random treasure tables (any of them). So, for example, you roll up your treasure on whatever table. You go through your chances of coins, gems, jewelry and get to the maps and magic column. Let's say you have a 15% chance of an item and you roll an 8. Next you roll to see if the item is a map or a magic item and if you get a magic item you roll on the magic item table to see what category of item you got (potion, scroll, sword etc. as you mentioned). Lets say you get "potion", so then you go to the potion table and roll for the specific one. In terms of categories, the various versions of the magic items table are basically identical, and only the FFC version has any particularly significant differences in the percentages of items. Between the D&D versions, maps vary the most, % wise, but even that is only a 10% difference (I have a chart with all the % of item categories across versions that I should get around to posting). Maps are further complicated in that they are usually a separate Map or item roll, but aren't separate in the FFC table. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:37:08 GMT -6
Perhaps I didn't convey it clearly, but the point was that Dave stocked his adventures randomly and wrote a good bit about ways of doing so in the FFC, and that point was made in response to John's comment that "It just seems more likely that Gygax and Arneson would assume you would use your imagination first, with a random method as a fallback..." Thanks for the clarification. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:38:04 GMT -6
]Can you remember any specific treasure that Dave had in Blackmoor? What made it so different from the treasure in the od&d (or FFC) tables? 200 SP was a big find. We never did find any magic. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 28, 2014 18:44:17 GMT -6
]Can you remember any specific treasure that Dave had in Blackmoor? What made it so different from the treasure in the od&d (or FFC) tables? 200 SP was a big find. We never did find any magic. That's really interesting, Mike. So how did experience get applied? Was 200sp enough to give the characters significant XP gains, or was treasure not as much of a factor in that? I know FFC has the experience priorities chart, but most of the priorities on it seem to require expenditure of a lot of money, and I honestly don't know if/how much he used that table in Blackmoor to boot. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Nov 28, 2014 19:31:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 29, 2014 4:54:14 GMT -6
Perfect, thanks! What really interests me about those Blackmoor XP tables is that XP gains, gold for gold, had to be significantly less than in they are in LBB OD&D, since you only got experience from doing things with you money, rather than simply hauling it up; and, most things you could do with your money actually gave you less than 100% returns in XP. On top of this, if 200sp really was a big find (for someone's final share of the treasure, or for the entire treasure itself?), then overall that's a really significant drop in how much XP people get from treasure. It seems to me that characters in Blackmoor either progressed much more slowly compared to LBB, or Arneson handled some fundamental aspect of XP or gold in differently: the only things I can think of might be that he used less inflated XP tables, or gave more XP from killing monsters, or made the value of 1sp much higher than what we later see in the LBB, so that 200sp actually is significant. I'm woefully under-read about Blackmoor beyond the basic descriptions and a once-through FCC a couple years ago. Am I missing something obvious, or was it just really difficult to gain levels in Blackmoor? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Nov 29, 2014 10:51:56 GMT -6
Perfect, thanks! What really interests me about those Blackmoor XP tables is that XP gains, gold for gold, had to be significantly less than in they are in LBB OD&D, since you only got experience from doing things with you money, rather than simply hauling it up; and, most things you could do with your money actually gave you less than 100% returns in XP. On top of this, if 200sp really was a big find (for someone's final share of the treasure, or for the entire treasure itself?), then overall that's a really significant drop in how much XP people get from treasure. It seems to me that characters in Blackmoor either progressed much more slowly compared to LBB, or Arneson handled some fundamental aspect of XP or gold in differently: the only things I can think of might be that he used less inflated XP tables, or gave more XP from killing monsters, or made the value of 1sp much higher than what we later see in the LBB, so that 200sp actually is significant. I'm woefully under-read about Blackmoor beyond the basic descriptions and a once-through FCC a couple years ago. Am I missing something obvious, or was it just really difficult to gain levels in Blackmoor? Levels didn't quite work the same as in d&d. Arneson had his own experience progressions, and experience wasn't always directly correlated to character power. For example, an elf with a magic sword might fight as a hero even if he was level 1. I would have to do some digging to provide you with a more thorough answer. I would poke around the Arneson subforum if you are interested. This thread might (?) prove useful in that regard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2014 17:12:08 GMT -6
By 1973-1974 when I was playing they were using pretty much OD&D. But advancement was VERY slow; there were three and four year old characters who were still second level. It was not rare for a character to retire at third or fourth level. Kind of like early Judges Guild stuff, the town was full of bartenders who were retired 3rd level fighters with a +1 axe, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 29, 2014 20:33:15 GMT -6
Perfect, thanks! What really interests me ..... ......Am I missing something obvious, or was it just really difficult to gain levels in Blackmoor? Levels didn't quite work the same as in d&d. Arneson had his own experience progressions, and experience wasn't always directly correlated to character power. For example, an elf with a magic sword might fight as a hero even if he was level 1. I would have to do some digging to provide you with a more thorough answer. I would poke around the Arneson subforum if you are interested. This thread might (?) prove useful in that regard. Some info here link at bottom of post on early Blackmoor XP. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 21, 2015 20:00:25 GMT -6
FWIW, EGG also wrote an article in The Strategic Review Vol 1 No 1 (April? 1975) with additional guidelines for randomly generating dungeons.
The article includes (bottom of p4) a table entitled "Chamber or Room Contents" which appears to be a d20 variant of the 2d6 method described in U&WA (p7) for randomly populating rooms. Below this is another table detailing the meaning of "treasure", should any occur. Here EGG tells us that when treasure occurs with a monster the treasure will be:
According to the type indicated in D&D Vol. III for Outdoor Adventures with pro rata adjustment for relative numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 21, 2015 20:11:56 GMT -6
But, waysoftheearth, treasure type is in vol. II. So what did the EGG mean? Pro Rata based upon the p. 7 U&WA tables (which makes little sense), or pro rata based upon the treasure types in vol. II? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 21, 2015 20:28:02 GMT -6
That's for you to decide One possible reading might be: According to the lair type as indicated in D&D Vol. III for Outdoor Adventures with pro rata adjustment for relative numbers.The "pro rata" adjustment for numbers is interesting too; I don't immediately recall seeing this stated explicitly elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 21, 2015 21:15:39 GMT -6
Yes, waysoftheearth, I think that is the best ruling. How would you judge the pro rating? |
|
|
|
Post by stormberg on Feb 23, 2015 11:39:27 GMT -6
Howdy All,
I seem to remember a discussion comparing and contrasting the various monster-treasure-empty room ratios from OD&D to Monster & Treasure Assortments to Holmes to Moldvay to AD&D (Appendix B) but I can't seem to find it any more.
It would seem you could reduce the dice rolls by migrating it to a single roll although %-wise I am not sure what the statistical equivalence of rolling 1 in 6 on one die for treasure and 2 in 6 on another die for monsters and monster with treasure would work out to.
Perhaps that was what Gary migrated to in Appendix B in the Dungeon Masters Guide where 60% is empty, 5% treasure only, 10% monster only, 15% monster and treasure, and then 5% each for odd room features and tricks/traps?
Futures Bright,
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Feb 23, 2015 12:09:12 GMT -6
Yes, waysoftheearth, I think that is the best ruling. How would you judge the pro rating? I guess the most logical way to prorate the numbers would be to take the median of the monster's 'Number Appearing' column and treat that as 100%. Numbers above or below would be prorated according to their relation to the median. So, if skeletons have a Number Appearing of 3-30, then that creates a median of 16.5 (we'll make it an even 16 here). If 8 skeletons show up, then the treasure is rolled and adjusted to 50% of the total. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 23, 2015 14:44:18 GMT -6
Howdy All, I seem to remember a discussion comparing and contrasting the various monster-treasure-empty room ratios from OD&D to Monster & Treasure Assortments to Holmes to Moldvay to AD&D (Appendix B) but I can't seem to find it any more. It would seem you could reduce the dice rolls by migrating it to a single roll although %-wise I am not sure what the statistical equivalence of rolling 1 in 6 on one die for treasure and 2 in 6 on another die for monsters and monster with treasure would work out to. I don't know where the forum discussion was, but Sham's Grog 'n Blog had a post on this. Restocking the Dismal DepthsThe single roll is on 2d6. I prefer his 1d6 table immediately preceeding that one, because it's easy to remember: 1 = monster 2 = monster & treasure 3 to 5 = empty 6 = empty, but 4 in 6 chance of hidden/trapped treasure |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 25, 2015 12:49:01 GMT -6
FWIW, EGG also wrote an article in The Strategic Review Vol 1 No 1 (April? 1975) with additional guidelines for randomly generating dungeons. The article includes (bottom of p4) a table entitled "Chamber or Room Contents" which appears to be a d20 variant of the 2d6 method described in U&WA (p7) for randomly populating rooms. Below this is another table detailing the meaning of "treasure", should any occur. Here EGG tells us that when treasure occurs with a monster the treasure will be: According to the type indicated in D&D Vol. III for Outdoor Adventures with pro rata adjustment for relative numbers.Awesome catch. Page 5 of the Monster Manual says much the same thing "It must be stated that treasure types are based upon the occurrence of a mean number of monsters as indicated by the number appearing... Adjustment downwards should always be made for instances where a few monsters are encountered. Similarly, a minor adjustment upwards might be called for if the actual number of monsters encountered is greatly in excess of the mean." Personally, I prefer the randomness of it all and don't adjust one way or the other, but there you have it. |
|
