Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:39:31 AM
The actual treasure tables in eg BX or 1e MM are not that generous. The problem is with the competition modules that became regarded as normative. The published adventures are vastly more generous than what you get from the treasure tables.

I created a set of random treasure generators for OD&D RAW that folks can use on-line.
https://www.batintheattic.com/tables_1974/

Examples
Type A Land
2,000 SP; Gems: 10 GP; 3 x 50 GP; 11 x 100 GP; 2 x 500 GP; Jewels: 1 x 600; 1 x 700; 1 x 800; 4 x 1,000; 1 x 1,100; 1 x 1,200; 1 x 1,400; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 5 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 2 x 6,000; 1 x 8,000; 1 x 9,000; Ring of Djinn Summoning; Map To (Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell; 14 Magic Arrows +1; Scroll of Prot: Elementals; Potion of Plant Control; Scroll of Prot: Magic); Lawful Sword +1, Locate Objects

Type C
12,000 CP; Gems: 100 GP; 500 GP;

Type E
Scroll of Prot: Elementals; Map To (Lawful Sword +1, +3 vs Dragons with Detect Metal, See Invisible, Detect Gems, Empathy; Ego 7); Ring of Delusion, Ring of Weakness; Scroll of 2 Wizard Spells

And Type H the Dragon Hoard
16,000 CP; 50,000 GP; Gems: 4 x 10 GP; 8 x 100 GP; 500 GP; Map To (Gems: 3 x 10 GP; 6 x 50 GP; 21 x 100 GP; 9 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 3 x 1,000; 1 x 1,200; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 2 x 5,000; 1 x 6,000; 2 x 7,000); Scroll of 3 Wizard Spells; Scroll of 1 Cleric Spell; Lawful Sword +1; Potion of Clairvoyance; Scroll of 2 Cleric Spells

Also there are tables for unguarded treasure based on Dungeon Level

Level 1
500 SP; 20 GP

Level 5
6,000 SP; 1,000 GP; Scroll of Prot: Magic

Level 13+
50,000 SP; 10,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 900; 1 x 1,200; 1 x 1,400; 1 x 2,000; 1 x 3,000; 1 x 5,000; 1 x 6,000; 1 x 10,000

Greetings!

Hmmm...*Treasure*.

I understand you do not like lots of treasure, Eric Diz.

However, allow me to suggest that you seek to grapple with a new attitude or perspective.

Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? In GMing, I have often erred on the side of being generous, and giving out treasure with a lavish hand. Treasure is a key component of the game, both in gaming, but also within the fantasy literature. (Ref Conan, and who can forget Bilbo and the rest gathered at the door of Smaug's horde? I know when I was a kid reading that, it certainly inspired me! *Laughing*)

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? Let them! Of course, make them work for it, but still. Why be purposely miserly? It begs the question, as a Player, if "Adventuring" is not bringing in the gold, then perhaps it is time to consider a different, more prosperous line of work that is more rewarding, right? I am also reminded that historically, say in the Roman Empire, a key driver and motivation for enlisting in the Legions was the regular, decent pay—and a retirement plan of land, and citizenship—but also, participating in war allowed you to potentially get RICH. Legionnaires were allowed to sack and plunder everything—gold, weapons, jewels, women! —even animals. Everything could be plundered or sold as slaves for GOLD. Those soldiers that showed courage and got bloody gained even more rewards and recognition—as well as bonus rewards of booty. If you survived, it was a good profession to build a home, a family, and have a reasonably prosperous and good life after 20 years of service in the Legions.

Adventuring, in my mind, certainly should be a prosperous activity and vocation.
The same thing could be said of being a Viking. Gold, jewels, weapons, slaves, women, and respect from your peers.
Remember, Eric, ask yourself this ONE QUESTION.

"What is Good in Life?" *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rhialto on June 22, 2023, 08:27:17 AM

Quote from: blackstone on June 22, 2023, 07:33:46 AM
What's going to be even more of a leap for me, is the game world will be set during the Hyborian Age. Old school sword and sorcery. It will have elements of Robert E Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and HP Lovecraft. NO demi-human races. Only humans. Ability scores and what classes available to you is based upon what kingdom/race you are. I'm really excited about it. Can't wait to begin next month.

Are you familiar with the free "Age of Conan" for OD&D: https://www.grey-elf.com/hyborian-age.pdf? There are several additional resources there. Given your other inspirations above you might want to look at Hyperborea 3e too: https://www.hyperborea.tv/.

I derived much of my material for my Hyborian Age campaign from https://hyboria.xoth.net/ . I'll take a look at the others. Thanks!

EDIT: Oh yeah! hyperdorea.tv! Seen their stuff on DriveThruRPG.net! I bought the Lemuria mini-campaign setting and I'm going to see how I can fit it in.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:40:34 AM
especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D.

The three little brown books of OD&D was perfectly fine.

---

As long as you were a miniatures wargamer from the upper midwest who happens to share the common assumptions about wargame campaigns that Gary Gygax assumed the reader would know after buying D&D.

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? ...

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

I think there is at least three different things going on in relation to treasure, and probably more:

1. There is how much shiny gold and gems (and magic) characters are pulling in compared to copper and silver and spare swords. 
2. There is the value of those things relative to what other characters are doing in the world.
3. There is how much this scales as characters progress.

Naturally, one thing has an effect on the others, but there is some room for independent action.  For example, I like it when characters start poor and very gradually become more wealthy.  I prefer that "wealth" be more grounded in reality, where silver has meaning.  And I want PCs to be neither the poorest nor the wealthiest denizens of the world.  Though they certainly can move into the upper end later in their careers.  This necessarily means that I can't have all of that, and also have hordes of gold coins found at Level 3, such that all that gold has driven the price list through the roof.  I'm giving up on the aesthetic of huge treasure hauls to get something else.  Doesn't mean that powerful characters don't become quite wealthy.  It just means that a lot of that wealth is in silver trade bars, with which you can buy a lot. 

This is contrast, for example, to the 5E default, where you get treasure coming down like rain, but it's almost meaningless, because there is very little to buy with it.  Unless of course the GM contrives something in the setting, like large armies, which 5E itself has zero support to manage.  There's plenty of other ways to mix it up, too.  The AD&D model has lots of money coming in and lots of money going out. 

I suppose I should reply on this thread, since I'm in the target demographic. I started playing RPGs right around the launch of 3rd edition. The only exposure I had to the older editions was from people who played 2nd edition, and frankly few of them had anything good to say about it. I think people sometimes forget now that when 3e came out, it was generally regarded as an improvement. I was largely tuned out of the hobby between 2009 and 2015 when the OSR really started picking up momentum, and only became aware of it around 5 years ago. So it's safe to say I came into the OSR without any nostalgia influencing my judgment.

What attracted me to the OSR was a number of what I'll describe as "promises" made by advocates for it around the internet, the chief ones being that the games were innovative, easier to run and play, more grounded and/or immersive, more flexible, and more focused on roleplaying. I use the word "promises", because my actual experience with OSR games has left me disappointed to varying degrees on all those fronts.

This is actually the second version of this post. Yesterday I typed out a longer version, that went into detail on exactly why I've become increasingly disillusioned with the OSR, but I felt it wasn't really in the spirit of this thread, so I ditched it. If people want further explanations, I'll expound.

These days I play OSR games for three reasons: 1) They're popular and easy to find games/players for (at least relative to the other games I'm interested in), 2) D&D is still the "lingua franca" of RPGs, so it's easier to just play a version of D&D rather than try to teach people a new system (and I prefer the OSR version to the current one), and 3) the average caliber of the players in OSR circles is noticeably higher than it is in the TTRPG scene at large.

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
However, allow me to suggest that you seek to grapple with a new attitude or perspective.

Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? In GMing, I have often erred on the side of being generous, and giving out treasure with a lavish hand. Treasure is a key component of the game, both in gaming, but also within the fantasy literature. (Ref Conan, and who can forget Bilbo and the rest gathered at the door of Smaug's horde? I know when I was a kid reading that, it certainly inspired me! *Laughing*)

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

The problems come in with what happens after the players get rich. If you go back to those fantasy stories you referenced, you'll notice that the point at which the hero acquires a horde of treasure is usually not far off of the end of the story. That's because most sensible people, upon acquiring an vast fortune, would use that opportunity to stop adventuring. Bilbo takes his small share of Smaug's treasure and never goes on another adventure again, and Conan has to conveniently lose all of his treasure offscreen between adventures. I've seen more than one campaign fall into the death spiral of players refusing to go on an adventure unless it will make them rich, and then refusing to take on any other adventures because they're already rich.

Add to that the fact that in a lot of RPGs there isn't anything worth spending all that money on, other than buying and maintaining real estate. I might not enjoy being dirt poor, but I don't find roleplaying as a property manager to be much fun either.

Then there's the tendency of certain GMs to hand their players massive piles of coins, only to spend the rest of the campaign complaining about how they're carrying too much money around. At a certain point you just want to say "Fuck it. Fine, I spend all my gold on buying a country house. I'll spend the rest of the campaign sitting around in my underwear, drinking cognac and nailing call girls. Happy now?"

Ironically, huge piles of treasure work better in "new school" games where you have readily available magic item shops to go and spend it on. But personally I'd rather just not have getting riches be a main motivation in my games. I spend entirely too many hours of my real life trying to make money to ever want to it to be the focus of my fantasy games.

Quote from: Brad on June 21, 2023, 05:29:05 PM
Once you get off the Internet and messageboards, the average person who has never played any sort of RPG is going to respond better to something that is succinct and easily understood. No one new to the hobby wants to fucking read a 500 page book; something like S&W Whitebox (^^^^^) or whatever is much less overwhelming.

Although I agree with, some folks are really drawn to art which is the one thing most OSR games don't take as seriously. I think Pathfinder covers probably explains a large number of sales (that and being 3.6).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM



One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

But overall I find the experience much easier and more enjoyable.

Hey there!  I ran an AD&D game some years ago and contemplated the same issue. I have read and taken to heart the advice in the DMG about the placement of treasure but being stingy wasn't going to do the trick. The insane amounts of xp required at mid levels and up would mean being a miser with treasure would lead to way too low a leveling pace that I wanted. I did want to keep treasure as the primary source of xp so the party wouldn't have to attack everything they met like a pack of rabid dogs. Also I liked the idea of them coming up with clever ways to get loot without endless slaughter. I had heard of a system by which xp was only given for treasure that was squandered. Rather than just having the PC have to drop their cash into an endless black hole just for xp I devised several ways to do it so that they get fringe benefits along with their xp. I collected ideas from around the internet and put together several ideas for squandering. They could give it to nobles which would earn favor, they could spend it on lavish parties for the public earning them renown with the populace. They could donate it to a church which could lead to benefits such as free healing etc. So after every treasure haul each pc decided how much to squander and how much to keep for supplies, equipment and other costs. So big piles of treasure could still be given out but the group would have a reason to keep on adventuring. It worked out pretty good. The benefits of the squandering can even affect late game considerations. A fighter who has been financing a powerful noble might be awarded a keep and title for good deeds done and generous donations received. That way the fighter can still get the keep without having to have a mountain of money to build it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 22, 2023, 10:06:30 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM



One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

But overall I find the experience much easier and more enjoyable.

Hey there!  I ran an AD&D game some years ago and contemplated the same issue. I have read and taken to heart the advice in the DMG about the placement of treasure but being stingy wasn't going to do the trick. The insane amounts of xp required at mid levels and up would mean being a miser with treasure would lead to way too low a leveling pace that I wanted. I did want to keep treasure as the primary source of xp so the party wouldn't have to attack everything they met like a pack of rabid dogs. Also I liked the idea of them coming up with clever ways to get loot without endless slaughter. I had heard of a system by which xp was only given for treasure that was squandered. Rather than just having the PC have to drop their cash into an endless black hole just for xp I devised several ways to do it so that they get fringe benefits along with their xp. I collected ideas from around the internet and put together several ideas for squandering. They could give it to nobles which would earn favor, they could spend it on lavish parties for the public earning them renown with the populace. They could donate it to a church which could lead to benefits such as free healing etc. So after every treasure haul each pc decided how much to squander and how much to keep for supplies, equipment and other costs. So big piles of treasure could still be given out but the group would have a reason to keep on adventuring. It worked out pretty good. The benefits of the squandering can even affect late game considerations. A fighter who has been financing a powerful noble might be awarded a keep and title for good deeds done and generous donations received. That way the fighter can still get the keep without having to have a mountain of money to build it.

Oooohhh, I like this!  I'm stealing this and using it in my games... and there's nothing you can do about it! 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 22, 2023, 03:09:28 PM

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? ...

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

I think there is at least three different things going on in relation to treasure, and probably more:

1. There is how much shiny gold and gems (and magic) characters are pulling in compared to copper and silver and spare swords. 
2. There is the value of those things relative to what other characters are doing in the world.
3. There is how much this scales as characters progress.

Naturally, one thing has an effect on the others, but there is some room for independent action.  For example, I like it when characters start poor and very gradually become more wealthy.  I prefer that "wealth" be more grounded in reality, where silver has meaning.  And I want PCs to be neither the poorest nor the wealthiest denizens of the world.  Though they certainly can move into the upper end later in their careers.  This necessarily means that I can't have all of that, and also have hordes of gold coins found at Level 3, such that all that gold has driven the price list through the roof.  I'm giving up on the aesthetic of huge treasure hauls to get something else.  Doesn't mean that powerful characters don't become quite wealthy.  It just means that a lot of that wealth is in silver trade bars, with which you can buy a lot. 

This is contrast, for example, to the 5E default, where you get treasure coming down like rain, but it's almost meaningless, because there is very little to buy with it.  Unless of course the GM contrives something in the setting, like large armies, which 5E itself has zero support to manage.  There's plenty of other ways to mix it up, too.  The AD&D model has lots of money coming in and lots of money going out.

Greetings!

Excellent, Steven Mitchell! Indeed, I run my campaign pretty much in a similar manner. Largely silver-based, rather than gold. Then, well, there are many forms of wealth that come in the form of weapon armouries, fine goods, herds of good animals, beautiful slaves, and actual, physical resources, such as X amount of wagons of Iron Bars, or wagons of good timber, and so on. The resources that make society function and Work.

Of course, a mark of true wealth and power is having bands of fighting men that have pledged to loyally serve you, and fight, and kill at your command. Gaining that kind of true power requires some combination of silver, weapons, animals, and women--as well as generally providing integrity, strength, honour, and respect. These intangible social dynamics are strong forms of wealth as well, as being known for them tends to result in gaining more resources, weapons, animals, and women. *Laughing*

People admire and trust strong men, armed. Everyone in a society and local community wants to see the strong men armed, are well-fed, and kept happy. People offer them food, or offer to cook for them. People eagerly offer you a place to live at their farm. Fathers and Mothers are always eager to have you marry their daughters. Older men reward you with silver or other resources, such as goods or animals, for you to work about, or also just "Being." The community approves, and wealth tends to flow in the various forms into the hands of such men--even in societies that are Barter based, and do not even use a coin-based economy.

I'm kind of mind boggled by some of the dynamics in 5E. I run 5E like I have always run my campaigns, so the whole idea of having "Nothing worthwhile to spend gold on" is just a huge head-scratcher for me. *Laughing* I'm not even being sarcastic, either. I genuinely don't understand how a campaign can even manage to work under such dynamics. How are you supposed to run 5E to get that going, my friend? All these years I've been somehow doing it wrong? You gotta explain this to me, Steven!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
I want to discuss in this thread the appeal and attraction of playing old school style game systems, especially to younger gamers who enjoy them with nostalgia not being a factor. I have introduced old school gaming to young players who were pre-schoolers in the early 2000's so nostalgia for them goes back to 4E or 3E at the earliest. Some of them really enjoyed these games and were interested in finding out more about them and others didn't really care for them. So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

For myself as an old fart gamer, nostalgia is indeed a part of it honestly. Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

How about you?

Answered your own question 

Ease of play is a key game design element. Roll up a PC in (literally) 5 minutes and off to the dungeon you go. No hassle with over-complicated rules that don't even belong in the game. Nothing to figure out other than "What would my character do here?" A group should not need to unravel some ridiculous codex of rules. That just gets in the way of the intention, which is to play the game. Just look at how WotC buried the intent of D&D underneath a mountain of rules text.

Old-School D&D was about real exploration: players poking and prodding their way through dungeons by asking questions. "How tall is it?" "How deep is it?" "What does it feel like?" "How far does it go?" "How much rope do we need?" "What do I hear?" "How does it sound" and ALL that. Not what the game has become"

Player: I make a Perception check *rolls*

GM: For what?

Player: To know what Justin Nimbleflake sees. I got a 17!

GM: *sigh*

It's number-fishing, not dungeon-crawling. Blades in the Dark is the current TTRPG Hotness and here's how the core mechanic works:

QuoteEvery action you take has the same odds but the positioning varies from controlled, to risky, to desperate. The worse the position, the more you have to lose. Then, before any dice are rolled, the GM states what the effect of this action might be. If everyone is agreed to the action, the positioning, and the outcome, the dice are rolled.

Oh really? So I can't just roll one die and get on with things? I need multiple dice, degrees of success AND failure, a GM hovering over my decisions like Helicopter-Mom™ and finally, the consent of the group just to perform one action.



OSR is roleplay-focused, but easy to get into. Not the 500-page nonsense games that we see on Kickstarter.

Quote from: SHARK on June 23, 2023, 12:45:55 AMI run my campaign pretty much in a similar manner. Largely silver-based, rather than gold. Then, well, there are many forms of wealth that come in the form of weapon armouries, fine goods, herds of good animals, beautiful slaves, and actual, physical resources, such as X amount of wagons of Iron Bars, or wagons of good timber, and so on. The resources that make society function and Work.

Of course, a mark of true wealth and power is having bands of fighting men that have pledged to loyally serve you, and fight, and kill at your command. Gaining that kind of true power requires some combination of silver, weapons, animals, and women--as well as generally providing integrity, strength, honour, and respect. These intangible social dynamics are strong forms of wealth as well, as being known for them tends to result in gaining more resources, weapons, animals, and women. *Laughing*

People admire and trust strong men, armed. Everyone in a society and local community wants to see the strong men armed, are well-fed, and kept happy. People offer them food, or offer to cook for them. People eagerly offer you a place to live at their farm. Fathers and Mothers are always eager to have you marry their daughters. Older men reward you with silver or other resources, such as goods or animals, for you to work about, or also just "Being." The community approves, and wealth tends to flow in the various forms into the hands of such men--even in societies that are Barter based, and do not even use a coin-based economy.

I'm kind of mind boggled by some of the dynamics in 5E. I run 5E like I have always run my campaigns, so the whole idea of having "Nothing worthwhile to spend gold on" is just a huge head-scratcher for me. *Laughing* I'm not even being sarcastic, either. I genuinely don't understand how a campaign can even manage to work under such dynamics. How are you supposed to run 5E to get that going, my friend? All these years I've been somehow doing it wrong? You gotta explain this to me, Steven!

The things to spend money on you brought to the game.  5E didn't do that.  It doesn't help you manage it, track it, give guidelines for how much it costs. The implied economy of the price list is not terribly helpful (though better than 3E!).  Now, in fairness, 5E doesn't actively work against you as badly as some other games do, either.  Because it really doesn't do much of anything, there isn't anything to tear down before you start layering your own stuff on it.  It's pretty easy to make your own price lists, after all, and there's not much explicit costs in the magic that needs to be adjusted (ignoring particular supplements).  The general tone of the game is so player-oriented, you have to ignore that, but that's not hard with a GM with some modest experience and backbone.

Now think outside your prior experiences, and what would happen if you were 14 and trying to run 5E out of the box?

Thanks for all the answers!

I certainly don't want to derail the thread with a discussion about treasure, so I'll be brief...

1 -  Magic items. This is my main issue. There are too many to keep track of. Each has different powers. The party has around 10 magic items now. Not even in the highest of high fantasy book a small party has that many magic items at a "medium level".

2 -  Earning and spending. My PCs are level 5 and don't have much to do with their money, unless I start charging for small expenses, note keeping, etc. At least now it will you start affecting their encumbrance (and they find  cleric willing to cure a curse for a steep price). Conan, Grey Mouser etc. would spend some money drinking and gambling, but I can't force the PCs to do the same. Even Conan didn't buy a kingdom - he took one!

3 -  Gold standard. I'm finding increasingly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that a ONE POUND silver dagger it costs THREE pounds of gold, while simultaneously making gold 10 times the value of silver. Of course, changing these absurd weights will you make it too easy to carry a fortune  without affecting encumbrance.

However, most of these things boil down to a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 23, 2023, 09:03:42 AM

3 -  Gold standard. I'm finding increasingly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that a ONE POUND silver dagger it costs THREE pounds of gold, while simultaneously making gold 10 times the value of silver. Of course, changing these absurd weights will you make it too easy to carry a fortune  without affecting encumbrance.

Encumbrance weights are generally inflated a bit.  Furthermore, a completely silver dagger would be all but useless for anything except ceremonial functions, and even then would be difficult to maintain.  Think of the silver dagger as "silvered" on the outer surface.  Not that considering both of those points answers all objections, but it does leave quite a bit of wiggle room in the assumptions.