Treasure and XP per dungeon level

[waysoftheearth]

I started writing a reply to the Number of Magic Items per Dungeon Level thread, but it morphed into something else, so I thought it better to start a new one.


In addition to the question of how many magic items per dungeon level is typical, we might ask how much treasure per dungeon level is typical?

This will vary a lot from game to game, but we might consider what's described in the dungeon design "rules" in U&WA to provide a "baseline".

The question of treasure per dungeon level gets interesting because:
* XP is gained from treasure.
* Treasure occurs (primarily) in dungeons rooms.
* There is a known probability of treasure occurring per dungeon room.
* There is a known distribution of possible treasure values occurring per dungeon level.

Therefore, we can describe the minimum, maximum, and mean XP value of treasure for any set of rooms on a dungeon level. As the number of rooms increases, the probable XP value of treasure per room approaches the average.

If my quick calculations are correct, the mean value of a dungeon level treasure is:
DL1 = 722 gp,
DL2 and DL3 = 1,580 gp,
DL4 and DL5 = 3,680 gp,
DL6 and DL7 = 5,594 gp,
DL8 and DL9 = 13,453 gp
Etc.

From here we can extrapolate the number of dungeon level rooms a player should, on average, need to explore in order to collect enough XP to advance.

I.e., if a fighting-man requires 2,000 XP make him a Warrior, then he needs (2000/722=2.78) to locate 3 "average" treasures on DL1 to advance. Since we know treasure occurs, on average, in one-third of rooms our fighter need to explore 9 DL1 rooms to find the required treasure. This assumes he actually finds all the treasure he passes (unlikely?), and the he gets to keep it all for himself (!).

Similarly, we can determine how many rooms our fighter needs (on average) to explore on each dungeon level to promote him through his fighting career, like so:

I.e., suppose a fighter requires:
2k XP on DL1 to reach 2nd level,
2k XP on DL2 to reach 3rd level,
4k XP on DL3 to reach 4th level,
8k XP on DL4 to reach 5th level,
16k XP on DL5 to reach 6th level,
32k XP on DL6 to reach 7th level,
56k XP on DL7 to reach 8th level,
120k XP on DL8 to reach 9th level.
Etc.

He would need (on average) to explore:
9 rooms on DL1,
4 rooms on DL2,
8 rooms on DL3,
7 rooms on DL4,
13 rooms on DL5,
17 rooms on DL6,
30 rooms on DL7,
28 rooms on DL8.
(All presuming a rather unlikely solo operation).


Clearly this is not a "smooth curve" (not that it should be).

Reaching 2nd level requires a player to explore more rooms (on average) than does reaching 2nd, 3rd or 4th levels. So reaching 2nd level is a real milestone; from there, in theory, it gets somewhat easier.

The sawtooth nature of this progression implies that some dungeon levels have a higher risk to reward profile than others. I.e., DL3 exposes the players to more and tougher monsters than does DL2, without offering richer treasure. Hence, players might be excused for wanting to minimise time spent on DL3.


From the above number of rooms for one player, we can figure out how many rooms a dungeon level "needs to have" in order to provide the XP required for "however many players" to level up.

I.e., supposing a reasonably likely scenario where treasure found is split evenly between, say, five players... they would need to explore five times as many rooms as a single player in order to each earn their XP. This implies they would need to explore:

45 rooms on DL1,
20 rooms on DL2,
40 rooms on DL3,
35 rooms on DL4,
65 rooms on DL5,
85 rooms on DL6,
150 rooms on DL7,
140 rooms on DL8.
(All presuming five players).

So this starts to give us a notion of "how big" a dungeon needs to be in order to hide enough treasure for five fighters to advance thru to Lord status, assuming the random distribution of treasure outlined in U&WA, and assuming the players actually find it all. If they only find the treasure half the time, they'll need to explore twice as many rooms.

Of course all this is tempered by the ref's ability to place "several of the most important treasures" with impunity throughout a dungeon level. These important treasure contain "various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems a jewelry" but should also be "secreted in out-of-the-way locations". The designer can without question influence (and totally define) the risk/reward balance in a dungeon level, so the averages are only a vague guide.


It's also worth noting that while the quantity of treasure occurring is independent of the number of players, the number of wandering monsters occurring scales with the number of players (U&WA p11). So... more players will attract more wandering monsters, but not more treasure.

[oakesspalding]

Where do you get the 722 go figure?

[waysoftheearth]

The 722 gp figure for DL1 is the average value of any treasure found on DL1, according to U&WA p7.

I.e., a random treasure found on DL1 comprises:
100% chance of 100-600 sp
50% chance of 10-60 gp
5% chance of 1-6 gems
5% chance of 1-6 jewelry
5% chance of a magic item.

So we would expect the mean value of hundreds of these treasures to approach:
1 x 35
0.5 x 35 (350 sp = 35 gp)
0.05 x 3.5 x 418 (the mean value of a gem; see odd74.proboards.com/thread/7606)
0.05 x 3.5 x 3410 (the mean value of a piece of jewelry)

So that's:
35 + 17.5 + 73.15 + 596.75 = 722.4 gp

83% of the treasure value is in jewelry, 10% is in gems, and 7% is in coins. So ultimately, gaining XP is very largely about finding jewelry.

In terms of one solo fighter searching for jewelry on DL1, he theoretically has a 5% chance of finding it for each group of three rooms he explores. This may make the average search appear longer than the 9 room search I suggested above.

This is because when jewelry is found on DL1 there will be (on average) 3.5 pieces worth a total of 3,410 x 3.5 = 11,935 gp. This is almost six times the XP the first level fighter requires, which skews the "average search", potentially making it appear one-sixth as long as it might really be for a solo figure.

On the other-hand, it means that a single DL1 treasure which does include jewelry will (on average) yield enough XP for six players to reach 2nd level.

[aldarron]

This is super cool. I've been thinking of doing an analysis along these lines for years, but I've had something more complicated in mind.

The problems I see depends somewhat on how experience is awarded. The biggest bugaboo is with magic items. IF XP is awarded for magic the numbers will surely change a bit.

The other issue for me would be treasure types treasures.

I think for this to be really accurate, you would need to look at the monster level lists (1-6) and average the treasure types for each level of monster. Then you could factor in the "unguarded" type above in the proper ratio.

[Deleted]

Treasure other than copper and silver should be rare on the first level. Then there should be a nice little pot of gold right next to the easiest to find entrance to the second level.

Encourage PCs to go deeper as soon as they can, and lure them to their doom!

[oakesspalding]

Thanks, waysoftheearth. I'm stupid. I was looking at that very chart in UW and not multiplying by 3.5 or something. That makes sense.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 12, 2017 8:32:46 GMT -6 aldarron said:

The biggest bugaboo is with magic items. IF XP is awarded for magic the numbers will surely change a bit.

Sure, but I assume zero XP for magic items, per the 3LBBs. Possessing magic items will usually enable players to reach more treasure, so awarding XP for the items themselves seems (to me) to be a kind of double dipping.

Jun 12, 2017 8:32:46 GMT -6 aldarron said:

The other issue for me would be treasure types treasures.

I think for this to be really accurate, you would need to look at the monster level lists (1-6) and average the treasure types for each level of monster. Then you could factor in the "unguarded" type above in the proper ratio.

Whether or not "Lair treasure" a.k.a. "Treasure Type" A thru K (or whatever) should or could or could ever without being defamed occur in dungeons has been debated extensively. For the purpose of this thread, I assume that the Treasure Types might (or might not) inform the composition of the important treasures that refs can place, if the ref is so inclined.

But since these important treasures are "secreted in out-of-the-way locations" the possibility of the players finding them is lower than their chance of finding the regular dungeon treasures. So... although the important treasures have higher value, there is a lower chance of finding them. For the sake of simplicity (and practicality), one could assume that on average the important treasures therefore contribute about the same as the regular treasures.

Sure, it's rough. Dealing with averages and assumptions is never gonna be an exact science.

[Scott Anderson]

This is exactly the kind of information to put into a "how to make a dungeon" document.

[aldarron]

Jun 15, 2017 4:41:12 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

....Whether or not "Lair treasure" a.k.a. "Treasure Type" A thru K (or whatever) should or could or could ever without being defamed occur in dungeons has been debated extensively.

Debated and settled IMHO. At the very least, there is no question when it comes to Holmes D&D (p34).

Jun 15, 2017 4:41:12 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

For the purpose of this thread, I assume that the Treasure Types might (or might not) inform the composition of the important treasures that refs can place, if the ref is so inclined. But since these important treasures are "secreted in out-of-the-way locations" the possibility of the players finding them is lower than their chance of finding the regular dungeon treasures. So... although the important treasures have higher value, there is a lower chance of finding them. For the sake of simplicity (and practicality), one could assume that on average the important treasures therefore contribute about the same as the regular treasures.

I guess you could use the treasure types as some kind of guide for ad-hoc treasures, but that strikes me as kinda silly for all kinds of reasons. It's also a bit strange if you are looking to place "high value" treasures since the typical Treasure Type treasures are usually worth a lot less than the "Beneath the Surface" treasures. Heck, Treasure Type Treasures have a decent chance of being worth nothing at all.

[waysoftheearth]

Sure Dan, I'm trying to leave it open to interpretation so as not to shut out any particular view.

Re: using treasure types to inform important treasures, I only meant that it's a possible tool the ref has at his disposal. Maybe it is silly, but thinking back to recent events in my own game; we had a medusa room with treasure. So what treasure would/should/could a medusa have? I could have used the dungeon treasure table, but I decided it should be an "important" treasure. From there I could have fabricated anything I wanted, sure. But being lazy (i.e., having a day job, night study, domestic duties, a family, and a shade of a social life) I just went ahead and used treasure type F as a guide.

It's probably the topic of another thread (surely there are a few on this already?) but it's interesting that treasure types can come up empty. Personally, I'm not a fan of a design that causes me to go through a long-winded procedure to come up empty; I'd prefer to short circuit it with an "empty" roll up front. But it is what it is.

Anyways, for the coins and gems (not jewelry or magic), I'm inclined to rule that an "empty" roll indicates some minor fraction (maybe a tenth or a quarter) of the potential treasure rather than zero so that that the treasure generating procedure always generates some treasure, even if it is relatively minor.

I've long thought there's a latent opportunity there to do another kind of treasure types for your own game.

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, I've been studying this analysis of yours. I think it describes well my disappointment with the tables as given. Not only is it tough for that lone fighter to advance, it is also darn near impossible for a normal adventuring party to get anywhere. By normal I mean about 3-9 players. I sometimes have upwards of 12 at my table. I'll use the table, realize everyone is going to walk away with a penny, ignore the table and make something up instead.

How about something like this?

For every level, roll that number of d6, multiply by 1k for the gold piece value of the pieces.
Roll again: any 1 on #d6 per level indicates a single roll of 1d6 for number of gems.
Do the same again for jewelry, and then again for magic items.

Of course, this makes treasures on the first level significantly bigger, solving the above problem. It does, however, also make the pieces value of the treasure significantly less at higher levels, although it raises the possibility of gems, jewelry and magic items significantly at higher levels. I see all this as a perk.

Now, I'm not sure how to divvy up the piece value into the ratio of copper, silver and gold that adds up to that value.
Perhaps it should be on a 1-2 in 6 that there are gems?
And I am not sure how to increase the number of gems, jewelry and magic items to more than a d6 at higher levels.
But I thought I would share my line of thinking and see if there was any feedback that could help me put something like this together.

Fight on!

[waysoftheearth]

More loot made simple:

2d6 x DL x 100 gp value of coins. 50-100% (1d6+4)x10% value in SP, remainder GP.

DL x 5% chance of: 2-12 gems, 1-6 jewellery; DL x 2.5% chance of 1 magic item (roll individually).
If any item occurs, roll for it again (recursively) until it doesn't come up*.

---

* Someone please calculate for us what this recursive jewellery option yields

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2019 2:56:50 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* Someone please calculate for us what this recursive jewellery option yields

Never mind; I figured it out.

The recursive jewellery option adds 5%, 11%, 18%, 25%, 33%, 43%, 54%, 67%, 82%, and 100% to the mean value of jewellery (without recursion) occurring in treasure stashes on DLs 1 thru 10, respectively (including stashes without jewellery). So, this is a kinda nice progression yielding "a bit more" (5%) jewellery value on DL 1 through to the same value as BTB on DL 10.

The above scheme also drops a TEN TIMES as much coin on DL 1 (700 compared to 70 gp worth) thru to 1.33 times as much coin on DL 10 (7,000 compared to 5,250 gp worth).

Good luck carrying all tha SP!

[sixdemonbag]

Apr 1, 2019 2:56:50 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

More loot made simple:

2d6 x DL x 100 gp value of coins. 50-100% (1d6+4)x10% value in SP, remainder GP.

DL x 5% chance of: 2-12 gems, 1-6 jewellery; DL x 2.5% chance of 1 magic item (roll individually).
If any item occurs, roll for it again (recursively) until it doesn't come up*.

Ok this is great. Any chance you could work through an example or two? Say, maybe DL1 and DLx? I think I understand your notation here, but an example would be helpful.

[Red Baron]

sixdemonbag

DL1:

*(Roll 2d6 = 7) x 100gp in value of coins. So 700gp value coins.
*(Roll 1d6+4 = 7) x10% value in SP. So 70% of value in sp. 70% x 700gp = 490gp worth of silver. 10sp/gp --> 4900 silver
*Remainder in gp: 30% x 700gp = 210gp
*DL1 x 5% chance = 5% chance of 2-12 gems, 1-6 jewelry. (Roll = 1d100 = 23 for gems, Roll 1d100 = 03 for jewelry) indicating presence of jewelry, but no gems. Roll 1d6 = 2 jewelry. If you rolled a 6 you roll again and its 1d6+6 items, and if you roll a six again roll again and its now 1d6+12 items, etc.
*DL1 x 2.5% chance = 2.5% chance of magic item. (Roll that however you like, I would emulate a 1d40 by combining 1d20 and a coin toss indicating whether to add 20 to the roll, with a every pip indicating a 2.5% chance. lets say you roll a 5 and the coin toss is heads so you get 25, but you needed a 1, so no magic item).

Thus total treasure could be 4900 silver, 210gp, and 2 jewelry which you now need to roll as per od&d to determine value of.

[sixdemonbag]

Apr 1, 2019 19:00:38 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

sixdemonbag

DL1:

...

Thus total treasure could be 4900 silver, 210gp, and 2 jewelry which you now need to roll as per od&d to determine value of.

Thanks! That makes perfect sense now.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2019 12:50:44 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Ok this is great. Any chance you could work through an example or two? Say, maybe DL1 and DLx? I think I understand your notation here, but an example would be helpful.

My numbers were based on something slightly different to what Red Baron wrote (although that would work too). To spell it out in agonising detail for dungeon level 1:


1. Roll 2d6 x DL x 100 gp for value of coins. E.g., 2d6 = 7 x DL 1 x 100 gp = 700 gp value coins.
2. Roll 1d6+4 x 10% for proportion of value in SP. E.g., 1d6 + 4 = 7 x 10% = 70% value in SP. 70% of 700 gp value = 490 gp worth of SP. At 10 SP per GP = 4,900 SP.
3. Remainder of coin value is in GP. E.g., 100% - 70% SP = 30% GP. 700 gp value x 30% = 210 GP.
4. Check for gems: Chance of 2-12 gems = 5% x DL 1 = 5% chance.
-- 4.1 If gems occur:
-- -- 4.2 Throw 2d6 to determine the number of gems.
-- -- 4.3 Determine value of gems per M&T.
-- -- 4.4 Check again (go back to 4) recursively until gems do not occur.
E.g., 1d100 = 78, so there are no gems.
5. Check for jewellery: Chance of 1-6 jewellery = 5% x DL 1 = 5% chance.
-- 5.1 If jewellery occurs:
-- -- 5.2 Throw 1d6 to determine the number of pieces of jewellery.
-- -- 5.3 Determine value of jewellery per M&T.
-- -- 5.4 Check again (go back to 5) recursively until jewellery does not occur.
E.g., 1d100 = 4, so there are at least (1d6=2) two piece of jewellery. Because there was jewellery, check again: 1d100 = 91, so there are no more pieces of pieces of jewellery.
6. Check for magic items: Chance of 1 magic item = 2.5% x DL 1 = 2.5% chance.
-- 6.1 If a magic item occurs:
-- -- 6.2 Determine which item per M&T.
-- -- 6.3 Check again (go back to 6) recursively until a magic item does not occur.
E.g., 1d100.0 = 15.6, so there is no magic item.

[sixdemonbag]

Apr 2, 2019 1:05:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My numbers were based on something slightly different to what Red Baron wrote (although that would work too). To spell it out in agonising detail for dungeon level 1:

Thanks again, guys. I'm gonna run through a few examples myself and see how it goes. I like having this all in one place, in just a handful of lines.

[Mordorandor]

In addition to the stocking calculations, one could also take the suggestion in U&WA,

"It is a good idea to thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monstrous guardians, and then switch to a random determination for the balance of the level. Naturally, the more important treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry."

to mean "add a treasure trove of Gems, Jewelry, and Magic" to 1/6 of the rooms. Then with the remaining rooms, use the stocking guidelines.

In a dungeon level of 30 rooms:

Stock ~5 rooms with a random determination of gems, jewelry, and magic (augmented by referee fiat [add SP and GP, add more magic items, etc.])
Have about half these rooms guarded by monsters
Have some with traps
Have all them located in hard to locate places (secret chambers, invisible, etc.)

Stock the remaining 25 rooms with the guidelines.

~8 rooms have monsters
~4 of those rooms with monsters have treasure
17 rooms are empty, except for ~3 which have unguarded treasure

[delta]

Sept 12, 2019 9:02:12 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

..."add a treasure trove of Gems, Jewelry, and Magic" to 1/6 of the rooms. Then with the remaining rooms, use the stocking guidelines...

That's actually the closest thing in this thread to what I've been doing in my current megadungeon for about the last year!

The problem that's started to dawn on me (*) is that the major treasures tend to all look the same in material and value. Consider: Once you get past the % chance for gems/jewelry (presumed here for these major treasures), then in every case for dungeon levels 1-7, the quantity is always the same 1d6 gems or jewels. Therefore the expected value is the same for all those levels. (In my case, I semi-accidentally generated larger treasure on level 3 than any of 4, 5, or 6.) Then at level 8 it switches to 1d12 gems/jewels in each case and is fixed at that for any further levels.

(*) Hey, it took a year to notice this problem, so it's not in the Top 50 of most broken systems I've ever used.

[grodog]

Consider substituting some treasure maps in there for the gems/jewelry, and make the maps where the _really big loot_ is cached, and that'll make the treasures more varied, as well as more laborious to recover.

If you're looking for ideas, I've got a pair of articles in TTS#1 and #2 on treasure maps.

Allan.

[delta]

Possibly I should add that I've actually been rolling on the dungeon treasure table repeatedly until I get 6 treasures with some gems/jewelry/magic included, and then placing those. Generally the magic is half-chances compared to other stuff, and someone pointed out to me that table just says "Magic", not "Maps and Magic", and so maps were excluded under that process. I have recently thought about depending on the maps more as a protocol, but haven't hit a really solid way of quantifying them across levels (i.e., if you just rely on the existing map tables then again they'd be same expected value at all dungeon levels).

[Mordorandor]

Sept 12, 2019 20:38:41 GMT -6 delta said:

Sept 12, 2019 9:02:12 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

..."add a treasure trove of Gems, Jewelry, and Magic" to 1/6 of the rooms. Then with the remaining rooms, use the stocking guidelines...

That's actually the closest thing in this thread to what I've been doing in my current megadungeon for about the last year!

The problem that's started to dawn on me (*) is that the major treasures tend to all look the same in material and value. Consider: Once you get past the % chance for gems/jewelry (presumed here for these major treasures), then in every case for dungeon levels 1-7, the quantity is always the same 1d6 gems or jewels. Therefore the expected value is the same for all those levels. (In my case, I semi-accidentally generated larger treasure on level 3 than any of 4, 5, or 6.) Then at level 8 it switches to 1d12 gems/jewels in each case and is fixed at that for any further levels.

(*) Hey, it took a year to notice this problem, so it's not in the Top 50 of most broken systems I've ever used.

When you say they all look the same in material, do you mean the troves always consist of gems and jewelry? If so, would it be a fix to swap the jewels for, let's say, crates of fine materials, art objects, dungeon equipment, etc.? Or did you mean something else than where my mind went with it?

For the value, you could take future special treasures and relocate them to another level. Perhaps plan out a 2nd level special treasure area and relocate it to first level. Or consolidate special treasures into smaller but larger than usual caches. For the 5 rooms above, make three, consolidating two together, for example? Or implement a random die roll, similar to how Gems have a 1-in-6 chance of being so much more valuable. Settle on a x-in-6 chance to increase a special horde, or use a 2d6 reaction check mechanic to have a chance to decrease or increase treasure size. 2 - 25% of horde present, 3-4 50% of horde present, 6-8 75% present ... etc.

Let me know if I've understood you correctly. All that above could have missed the mark on what you were getting at.

[delta]

Sept 13, 2019 12:44:30 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Sept 12, 2019 20:38:41 GMT -6 delta said:

That's actually the closest thing in this thread to what I've been doing in my current megadungeon for about the last year!

The problem that's started to dawn on me (*) is that the major treasures tend to all look the same in material and value. Consider: Once you get past the % chance for gems/jewelry (presumed here for these major treasures), then in every case for dungeon levels 1-7, the quantity is always the same 1d6 gems or jewels. Therefore the expected value is the same for all those levels. (In my case, I semi-accidentally generated larger treasure on level 3 than any of 4, 5, or 6.) Then at level 8 it switches to 1d12 gems/jewels in each case and is fixed at that for any further levels.

(*) Hey, it took a year to notice this problem, so it's not in the Top 50 of most broken systems I've ever used.

When you say they all look the same in material, do you mean the troves always consist of gems and jewelry? If so, would it be a fix to swap the jewels for, let's say, crates of fine materials, art objects, dungeon equipment, etc.? Or did you mean something else than where my mind went with it?

For the value, you could take future special treasures and relocate them to another level. Perhaps plan out a 2nd level special treasure area and relocate it to first level. Or consolidate special treasures into smaller but larger than usual caches. For the 5 rooms above, make three, consolidating two together, for example? Or implement a random die roll, similar to how Gems have a 1-in-6 chance of being so much more valuable. Settle on a x-in-6 chance to increase a special horde, or use a 2d6 reaction check mechanic to have a chance to decrease or increase treasure size. 2 - 25% of horde present, 3-4 50% of horde present, 6-8 75% present ... etc.

Let me know if I've understood you correctly. All that above could have missed the mark on what you were getting at.

Yes, that's what I was saying and you have some reasonable improvement ideas there. The material issue was "always a little silver, maybe gold, and some gems/jewels". I was recently thinking about more ways to vary that.

Dirty secret: I'm challenged at dungeon design, so among other things, I was detailing only one dungeon level ahead of my PCs progress and didn't have a chance to balance treasures in the whole complex all at once.

[Mordorandor]

Sept 13, 2019 15:01:02 GMT -6 delta said:

Sept 13, 2019 12:44:30 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

When you say they all look the same in material, do you mean the troves always consist of gems and jewelry? If so, would it be a fix to swap the jewels for, let's say, crates of fine materials, art objects, dungeon equipment, etc.? Or did you mean something else than where my mind went with it?

For the value, you could take future special treasures and relocate them to another level. Perhaps plan out a 2nd level special treasure area and relocate it to first level. Or consolidate special treasures into smaller but larger than usual caches. For the 5 rooms above, make three, consolidating two together, for example? Or implement a random die roll, similar to how Gems have a 1-in-6 chance of being so much more valuable. Settle on a x-in-6 chance to increase a special horde, or use a 2d6 reaction check mechanic to have a chance to decrease or increase treasure size. 2 - 25% of horde present, 3-4 50% of horde present, 6-8 75% present ... etc.

Let me know if I've understood you correctly. All that above could have missed the mark on what you were getting at.

Yes, that's what I was saying and you have some reasonable improvement ideas there. The material issue was "always a little silver, maybe gold, and some gems/jewels". I was recently thinking about more ways to vary that.

Dirty secret: I'm challenged at dungeon design, so among other things, I was detailing only one dungeon level ahead of my PCs progress and didn't have a chance to balance treasures in the whole complex all at once.

Oh, no! I didn't mean to imply I balanced treasure through all possible dungeon levels before hand! 

Though I have occasionally generated ~20 special treasures and then picked some to place.

For differentiating treasure, I take ideas from "Treasure" by Courtney Campbell (http://angband.oook.cz/steamband/Treasure.pdf) and other online resources. I look through some of their document materials and choose as the Muses strike me.

[gemini476]

Sept 13, 2019 12:44:30 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Sept 12, 2019 20:38:41 GMT -6 delta said:

That's actually the closest thing in this thread to what I've been doing in my current megadungeon for about the last year!

The problem that's started to dawn on me (*) is that the major treasures tend to all look the same in material and value. Consider: Once you get past the % chance for gems/jewelry (presumed here for these major treasures), then in every case for dungeon levels 1-7, the quantity is always the same 1d6 gems or jewels. Therefore the expected value is the same for all those levels. (In my case, I semi-accidentally generated larger treasure on level 3 than any of 4, 5, or 6.) Then at level 8 it switches to 1d12 gems/jewels in each case and is fixed at that for any further levels.

(*) Hey, it took a year to notice this problem, so it's not in the Top 50 of most broken systems I've ever used.

When you say they all look the same in material, do you mean the troves always consist of gems and jewelry? If so, would it be a fix to swap the jewels for, let's say, crates of fine materials, art objects, dungeon equipment, etc.? Or did you mean something else than where my mind went with it?

For the value, you could take future special treasures and relocate them to another level. Perhaps plan out a 2nd level special treasure area and relocate it to first level. Or consolidate special treasures into smaller but larger than usual caches. For the 5 rooms above, make three, consolidating two together, for example? Or implement a random die roll, similar to how Gems have a 1-in-6 chance of being so much more valuable. Settle on a x-in-6 chance to increase a special horde, or use a 2d6 reaction check mechanic to have a chance to decrease or increase treasure size. 2 - 25% of horde present, 3-4 50% of horde present, 6-8 75% present ... etc.

Let me know if I've understood you correctly. All that above could have missed the mark on what you were getting at.

While crates of paintings and bolts of silk are great for varying things up, beware the weight! Gems and jewelry are valuable because they take so little encumbrance.

A gem is equivalent to one coin, and a piece of jewelry equal to twenty. In other words, gems give approximately 418gp/cn and jewelry 170.5gp/cn. Twenty gems are generally preferable to one crown, but the crown is still preferable to twenty gold pieces.

If you give the players a statue, make sure that it's still worth picking up. Something that takes the same encumbrance as a human (1,750cn) would need to be worth at least 1,750gp to be worth hauling back to town. An equivalent weight of jewelry would be 298,375gp, and an equivalent amount of gems 731,500gp.

For a somewhat extreme example, imagine that somewhere within the dungeon is a vast vault filled to the brim with copper pieces. (Perhaps your stereotypical dragon's lair.) The players can bring out nearly endless amounts of treasure from that room, given enough time. It's probably not worth it, though, because even at maximum encumbrance you're just bringing back 60gp/person! Value by weight is everything.

[delta]

Sept 15, 2019 7:11:51 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

Value by weight is everything.

Totally agreed, well put!

I actually did have a room full of copper coins in a distant ruin a while back. My coin weights are one-tenth less, and pricing power ten times more than book D&D, so there's 100 times more value by weight available. So in this case the PCs did load themselves up but I think it was a useful and funny scene as they were counting up encumbrance for themselves and their mule, dumping equipment and large stores of rations (hobbits eating as much as possible) to make the several-day trek over some mountains feasible.

[gemini476]

Rations et. al. are actually an interesting case, since in OD&D (and Moldvay Basic / Cook/Marsh Expert, IIRC) all the miscellaneous non-weapon/armor/treasure things just get lumped into the "everything else is 80cn total" thing. Since iron rations are 15gp, they're always worth at least 1.8gp/cn.

At the same time, though, there's a perverse incentive to just give all the equipment to one character - one torch or thirty all weigh the same, but if they're split among two people they take twice as much encumbrance.

It's honestly surprising that it took all the way until the Dungeon Master's Guide for TSR to give encumbrance to basic equipment. There it's 5gp and 75cn for iron rations, meaning 6.6sp/cn. Still not worth dumping for anything less than gold, but I suppose it's something.

Even converting to a silver-based system and 1/10th-weight counts, the iron rations are 1.8cp/cn with flat encumbrance and thus worth more than their weight in copper. With AD&D's individual encumbrance, they aren't.

In any case, though, you get experience for bringing back treasure and generally don't for bringing back the equipment you brought in so maybe you're willing to toss 80cn of miscellaneous equipment for 16xp.