How many dead Kobolds does it take to get to 2nd level?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post

If a traditional party of 4 (Cleric, Fighter, MU, Thief) were to kill their way to 2nd level, preying upon only that weakest of traditional D&D monsters, the lowly Kobold, how many deaths would they have on their collective conscience by the time they all hit 2nd level?  The answer in 5e, is 100, even (cool, huh?), but I wondered how that compared to other eds:

chart

So, I know I'm a notorious 4venger and all, but this one is just out of curiousity, and it led to some surprises.  

For one thing, I couldn't find the 0D&D 'collector set' I received as a gift in 1989 - big surprise there, but if anyone wants to do the same for that, it might be fun.  

For another, going through the numbers for 1e, I was forced to consider treasure types, because 1e gave exp for collecting money, 1 per gp.  The individual J type adds basically nothing, but when you consider O & Qx5 (particularly Qx5, the random gem chart in the DMG is rather generous) in the lair, genociding an average (based on the number appearning) tribe of 220 kobolds is a little profitable, and about doubles their individual exp value (and you will have to whipe out two decent-sized tribes to hit 2nd).  2e is basically the same, except it gives no exp for gold, so twice as many dead kobolds.  So, then I went and did treasure for the other eds, too.

Other interesting bits:

The size of an all-weakest-kobold encounter is easy to get for 3-5e, but took some guessing with 1e & 2e.  I went with the 2e No. Appearing, which is supposed to be a 'wilderness encounter' and, at 5-20, averages to 12.5, while, for 1e, and found a Random Level I Monsters table in a DMG apendix that gave the bizarre range of 6-18 (that's 6d3), averaging to 12.  

There's a clear division between classic and modern D&D when it comes to treasure.  3e & 4e have expected values for 2nd level characters, so I just used those.  1e & 2e used treasure types, so an all-kobold-killing party is going to be rolling in copper and silver and never see gold or a magic item, but get most of its profit from gems.  For 5e, I used wrecan's estimate of a 2nd level expected wealth.

I'm assuming the 1e & 2e parties manage to get just the right exp split to reach 2nd level at the same time - a lot of AD&D DMs did give different exp to each PC - but obviously that'd never happen.  Also, obviously, you'd never fight nothing but kobolds.  :shrug:

Which reminds me, the classic/modern divide is also very obvious in experience tables.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, 5e is split between resembling classic and modern. 

Just thought I'd share.
 

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Nice comparison.
Cool data!


Perhaps unsurprisingly, 5e is split between resembling classic and modern. 
 



Looking at some of the data, I'd say it's more like halfway between 3e and 4e, at least for the total number of kobolds you'll have to kill.
I think the most important number is encounters/level, because that strips out the vagaries of the exact details of kobold statting.


In encounters/level, composed entirely of kobolds, Next is quite clearly right between 3e and 4e, and nowhere near 1e or 2e.  (Which, let's face it, is probably a good thing.  Who really wants 40-80 encounters to hit 2nd level?  I generally support a slower leveling pace than 3e or 4e recommend, and I still don't want that many.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I'm not sure its altogether helpful, but here's the lowdown in OD&D kobolds. In the original books (i.e. without supplements), and granting the occasional vagueness of the rules themselves, monsters are (more or less) worth 100 xp per hit die. (The need to adjust for having a level above that of the monster or dungeon is not relevant here, since we're dealing with 1st level characters.) So, kobolds are 50 xp each. They also each have 1-6 gp, so we can average 53.5 xp per kobold. Fighting men need 2000 xp for 2nd level, clerics 1500, and magic users 2500. There are no thieves in the original books.

The problem comes with the whole "encounter" model when analyzing OD&D. The original editions of D&D, really up until 3e, just weren't written that way. So, e.g. the only "number appearing" given for kobolds is 40-400. This is not an "encounter" unless the players are being very stupid, i.e. walking right into the middle of a kobold camp and opening fire. Otherwise, there is no set presumption about how many kobolds one should or could meet in an "encounter".

Why? Because D&D was not, for the first few decades, built around encounters but on adventures or delves into dungeons. The unit was not the encounter, but the single delve into the dungeon (or, alternatively, the day in wilderness travel). The measure was not experience from defeating monsters, but getting treasure, which occasionally involved fighting, but often not having an "encounter" was the wisr choice, if you could get treasure without any need to confront, and so use up resources (e.g. spells, hit points, torches, etc.).

[If you want the thief, you'd want to use the altered Greyhawk experience system, in which case kobolds are worth only 5 xp, and thieves need 1200 for second level.]

However, if you presume an original 3 books only party of four including one magic user fighting only kobolds, each of whom has 3.5 gold pieces, then each kobold/gold unit is worth 13.375 xp (53.5 divided by four). The magic user will reach 2nd level with just barely under 187 kobolds, at which time the others will have already reached 2nd level. If we use the "12 kobold per encounter" from your 1e column above, that means 15.58 "encounters" for all members of the party to level up to 2nd, with a total of 654.5 gold pieces.

For 3 LBBs + Greyhawk, each kobold/gold unit is reduced to 8.5 xp, or 2.125 xp per party member, so suffice it to say that that will take a lot of encounters! (On the plus side, the thief will get to be 3rd level even before the magic user is 2nd.)

In short, this shows why for old schoolers, D&D isn't and can't be a game about combat encounters. They are potentially too deadly and quite limited in reward. The goal is adventure and exploration, seeking fabulous treasure, fighting sometimes, and avoiding combat at least as often, before returning to the surface to prepare for another delve into the dungeon.
It takes a village (of kobold deaths) to raise a child (from a level 1 wizard to level 2 wizard)

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


For 3 LBBs + Greyhawk, each kobold/gold unit is reduced to 8.5 xp, or 2.125 xp per party member, so suffice it to say that that will take a lot of encounters! (On the plus side, the thief will get to be 3rd level even before the magic user is 2nd.)

In short, this shows why for old schoolers, D&D isn't and can't be a game about combat encounters. They are potentially too deadly and quite limited in reward. The goal is adventure and exploration, seeking fabulous treasure, fighting sometimes, and avoiding combat at least as often, before returning to the surface to prepare for another delve into the dungeon.



How do you guys even play AD&D? That just a lot of encounters......
How long does it take to level up? (how many sessions and weeks)

In short, this shows why for old schoolers, D&D isn't and can't be a game about combat encounters. They are potentially too deadly and quite limited in reward. The goal is adventure and exploration, seeking fabulous treasure, fighting sometimes, and avoiding combat at least as often, before returning to the surface to prepare for another delve into the dungeon.



Thank you - that was my saving bit of calm, rational explaination in this (at times) torrent of ignorance Thanks to you both for taking the time working through the example
I'm not sure its altogether helpful, but here's the lowdown in OD&D kobolds.

Helpful and interesting, thanks.  

In the original books (i.e. without supplements), and granting the occasional vagueness of the rules themselves, monsters are (more or less) worth 100 xp per hit die. (The need to adjust for having a level above that of the monster or dungeon is not relevant here, since we're dealing with 1st level characters.) So, kobolds are 50 xp each. They also each have 1-6 gp, so we can average 53.5 xp per kobold. Fighting men need 2000 xp for 2nd level, clerics 1500, and magic users 2500. There are no thieves in the original books.

So the original game did use the exp for gold rule?  OK.  And exp was about the same, but monters were worth much more exp?  hmm...

The problem comes with the whole "encounter" model when analyzing OD&D. The original editions of D&D, really up until 3e, just weren't written that way. So, e.g. the only "number appearing" given for kobolds is 40-400. This is not an "encounter" unless the players are being very stupid, i.e. walking right into the middle of a kobold camp and opening fire. Otherwise, there is no set presumption about how many kobolds one should or could meet in an "encounter".

Why? Because D&D was not, for the first few decades, built around encounters...

For a game not using encounters, 1e sure had a lot of Random Encounter Tables in the back of the DMG.  ;)

That's where I got 12, a random 1st level monster table, Kobolds were an entry, with 6-18 appearing.  

The no appearing in 2e was for a "Wilderness Encounter."

So, I'm not too worried about it. 

Were there any such tables in 0e?  The "Monster and Treasure Assortments" perhaps?


If you want the thief, you'd want to use the altered Greyhawk experience system, in which case kobolds are worth only 5 xp, and thieves need 1200 for second level.

That's fascinating. The exp system changed with Greyhawk, as well as the combat system?  Sounds like even 0e had its half-ed.  

For 3 LBBs + Greyhawk, each kobold/gold unit is reduced to 8.5 xp, or 2.125 xp per party member, so suffice it to say that that will take a lot of encounters! (On the plus side, the thief will get to be 3rd level even before the magic user is 2nd.)

That's so different, I'm just going to have to do both.

Any insight into why exp was changed so radically in Greyhawk?


Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

One of the point of Old School D&D was to avoid combat.
You were supposed to acquire treasure while spending the least amount of gold and resources as possible.
But people ejoyed fighting monsters too much.

So the game moved from avoiding monsters to steal hidden gold to killing monsters to take their gold to getting paid to kill troublesome monsters.

Many don't realize this

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

From what I recall of 2E, monsters gave XP, but fighters also gained bonus XP per hit die of monster slain, and thieves also gained bonus XP for wealth found, while casters gained bonus XP for spells cast for the purpose of accomplishing goals (other than the goal of gaining levels).

Wouldn't that give a variable result, based on lots of factors? 
The metagame is not the game.
One of the point of Old School D&D was to avoid combat.
You were supposed to acquire treasure while spending the least amount of gold and resources as possible.
But people ejoyed fighting monsters too much.

So the game moved from avoiding monsters to steal hidden gold to killing monsters to take their gold to getting paid to kill troublesome monsters.

Many don't realize this




If the old D&D focus on avoiding monsters and stealing treasure, then why everybody
didn't play as a thief?

 
From what I recall of 2E, monsters gave XP, but fighters also gained bonus XP per hit die of monster slain, and thieves also gained bonus XP for wealth found, while casters gained bonus XP for spells cast for the purpose of accomplishing goals (other than the goal of gaining levels).

I don't recall that, specifically.  And, I thought 2e did away with treasure as exp.  Anyway, if you have a book handy, direct-quote some numbers to me and I'll happily update 'em.

Wouldn't that give a variable result, based on lots of factors? 

Well, I am boiling it down to just killing kobolds.  It's not really a simulation of how the games actually play, just how the numbers come out using kobolds as a common unit of measurement.  It started out as "wouldn't it be funny to express experience progression in terms of dead kobolds."




Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


For 3 LBBs + Greyhawk, each kobold/gold unit is reduced to 8.5 xp, or 2.125 xp per party member, so suffice it to say that that will take a lot of encounters! (On the plus side, the thief will get to be 3rd level even before the magic user is 2nd.)

In short, this shows why for old schoolers, D&D isn't and can't be a game about combat encounters. They are potentially too deadly and quite limited in reward. The goal is adventure and exploration, seeking fabulous treasure, fighting sometimes, and avoiding combat at least as often, before returning to the surface to prepare for another delve into the dungeon.



How do you guys even play AD&D? That just a lot of encounters......
How long does it take to level up? (how many sessions and weeks)




As I noted above, the unit in OD&D and AD&D for gaining experience is not the encounter, but the adventure. If you had a successful exploration and discovered treasure, which you brought back to the surface (or made it through the wilderness trek back to civilization), then you got experience. Fighting monsters over and over to gain experience was a losing proposition in the earlier iterations. Depending on the generosity of the ref in distributing treasure, gaining levels, while not fast, was not especially onerous, although most campaigns tended to top out around 9th-12th level.
One of the point of Old School D&D was to avoid combat.
You were supposed to acquire treasure while spending the least amount of gold and resources as possible.
But people ejoyed fighting monsters too much.

So the game moved from avoiding monsters to steal hidden gold to killing monsters to take their gold to getting paid to kill troublesome monsters.

Many don't realize this




If the old D&D focus on avoiding monsters and stealing treasure, then why everybody
didn't play as a thief?

 



Older editions where adventure based. The goal was to get in and get out.
Fighting monster drained your resources while getting out.
So Avoiding the traps and monsters was the true utopian goal
But you never could avoid them all.
There were monsters in upredictable numbers in random locations.


That's why you brought the fighter(s) and told the caster(s) to prepare a few combat spells.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

AD&D 2E, DMG, page 48

[spoiler Table 34: Invidivual Class Awards]

































































ActionAward
Warrior:
Per Hit Die of creature defeated10 XP / level
Priest:
Per successful use of granted power100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos100 XP / spell level
Wizard:
Spells cast to overcome foes or problems50 XP / spell level
Spells successfully researched500 XP / spell level
























Rogue:
Per successful use of a special ability200 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained2 XP









Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only)5 XP




 [/spoiler]Apologies for the wonkiness of the table.


The metagame is not the game.
So the original game did use the exp for gold rule?  OK.  And exp was about the same, but monters were worth much more exp?  hmm...

Yes. However, it's important to remember that when the rules came out i 1974, Gary Gygax et al. were already playing with new adjustments. By the time Greyhawk, the first supplement, was released in 1975, Gary had this to say about monster XP: "The awarding of experience points is often a matter of discussion, for the referee must make subjective judgments. Rather than the (ridiculous) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below, dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved." Personally, I (and many other old schoolers) who don't have time to play nearly as often as Gary did, don't find the 100 xp per level for monsters ridiculous! Still, his point was to put XP firmly in the realm of treasure.

For a game not using encounters, 1e sure had a lot of Random Encounter Tables in the back of the DMG.  ;)

That's where I got 12, a random 1st level monster table, Kobolds were an entry, with 6-18 appearing.  

The no appearing in 2e was for a "Wilderness Encounter."

So, I'm not too worried about it. 

Were there any such tables in 0e?  The "Monster and Treasure Assortments" perhaps?

The original books had wandering monster tables, but without any numbers indicating how many appeared. The only "number appearing" ever presented is in the main chart in Monsters and Treasure, and that's where the 40-400 is. Basically, the ref was just supposed to wing it, really.


That's fascinating. The exp system changed with Greyhawk, as well as the combat system?  Sounds like even 0e had its half-ed.

Ha! The combat system did not change in Greyhawk. It was the same as the "alternative" system of the LBBs, which in truth was the system Gary used and basically became universal. The nods to Chainmail were just that, not ever really taken into account in the playing of the game. However, Greyhawk was a bit of a game changer. Hit dice for players were from now on different types of dice (d4, d6, or d8) rather than different hit die progressions of the same type (d6). Bonuses were added for high ability scores (well, some of them), on option for having different weapons do different damage (and different monsters do different damage) was introduced, magic tables were expanded, the magic missile spell came into being, etc., along with the thief. Basically, Greyhawk consolidated much of the "core" of what is D&D.

Any insight into why exp was changed so radically in Greyhawk?

See above, re: Gygax's claim about the 100xp/level as "ridiculous".

Older editions where adventure based. The goal was to get in and get out.
Fighting monster drained your resources while getting out.
So Avoiding the traps and monsters was the true utopian goal
But you never could avoid them all.
There were monsters in upredictable numbers in random locations.


That's why you brought the fighter(s) and told the caster(s) to prepare a few combat spells.

Yes, largely this. Of course, exploration was also part of the game. To be sure, you always were hoping for treasure! Still, this is why most rooms were not meant to be occupied in a dungeon, but often had interesting features to explore.

I'm not sure its altogether helpful, but here's the lowdown in OD&D kobolds.

Helpful and interesting, thanks.  

In the original books (i.e. without supplements), and granting the occasional vagueness of the rules themselves, monsters are (more or less) worth 100 xp per hit die. (The need to adjust for having a level above that of the monster or dungeon is not relevant here, since we're dealing with 1st level characters.) So, kobolds are 50 xp each. They also each have 1-6 gp, so we can average 53.5 xp per kobold. Fighting men need 2000 xp for 2nd level, clerics 1500, and magic users 2500. There are no thieves in the original books.

So the original game did use the exp for gold rule?  OK.  And exp was about the same, but monters were worth much more exp?  hmm...

The problem comes with the whole "encounter" model when analyzing OD&D. The original editions of D&D, really up until 3e, just weren't written that way. So, e.g. the only "number appearing" given for kobolds is 40-400. This is not an "encounter" unless the players are being very stupid, i.e. walking right into the middle of a kobold camp and opening fire. Otherwise, there is no set presumption about how many kobolds one should or could meet in an "encounter".

Why? Because D&D was not, for the first few decades, built around encounters...

For a game not using encounters, 1e sure had a lot of Random Encounter Tables in the back of the DMG.  ;)

That's where I got 12, a random 1st level monster table, Kobolds were an entry, with 6-18 appearing.  

The no appearing in 2e was for a "Wilderness Encounter."

So, I'm not too worried about it. 

Were there any such tables in 0e?  The "Monster and Treasure Assortments" perhaps?


If you want the thief, you'd want to use the altered Greyhawk experience system, in which case kobolds are worth only 5 xp, and thieves need 1200 for second level.

That's fascinating. The exp system changed with Greyhawk, as well as the combat system?  Sounds like even 0e had its half-ed.  

For 3 LBBs + Greyhawk, each kobold/gold unit is reduced to 8.5 xp, or 2.125 xp per party member, so suffice it to say that that will take a lot of encounters! (On the plus side, the thief will get to be 3rd level even before the magic user is 2nd.)

That's so different, I'm just going to have to do both.

Any insight into why exp was changed so radically in Greyhawk?





The random encounter tables were more of a timing mechanism and to discourage easy but noisy solutions to problems like battering open closed doors instead of picking locks. Encountering a random encounter was a bad thing because the risk of dying and expenditure of resources (spells, ammunition, hitpoints) didn't weigh up to the gain in xp or treasure, that and the noise of fighting a random encounter triggered another possible random encounter. The real treasure (and main source of xp) was to be found preferably with as little (combat) encounters as possible.

Aside of that, nice comparison. In basic and 1/2e D&D it did take more sessions to gain a level and taking a character to 7th level was a big acheivement.
So the original game did use the exp for gold rule?  OK.  And exp was about the same, but monters were worth much more exp?  hmm...

Yes. However, it's important to remember that when the rules came out i 1974, Gary Gygax et al. were already playing with new adjustments. By the time Greyhawk, the first supplement, was released in 1975, Gary had this to say about monster XP: "The awarding of experience points is often a matter of discussion, for the referee must make subjective judgments. Rather than the (ridiculous) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below, dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved." Personally, I (and many other old schoolers) who don't have time to play nearly as often as Gary did, don't find the 100 xp per level for monsters ridiculous! Still, his point was to put XP firmly in the realm of treasure.

OK, I guess I'll go with the 5exp kobolds for 0e, then.  Thanks for your help.


Saelorn:  Thanks.  That would be hard to incorporate, but I do notice that, with kobolds a half HD monster, and the theif effectively getting double exp for treasure (or does /only/ the theif get exp for treasure?), maybe I could just roughly double it... 


Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Interesting.....

So AD&D was basically raiding dungeons while spending less amount of resources.

I experience these type of scenarios before. If one player said,"Screw my wealth"
and earn no profit or lossing profit, the party can have a great advantage from it.

I mostly be this type of player, because unless I am in a war, there no point of saving
resources. May well spend what you got.  
(or does /only/ the theif get exp for treasure?)

It was AD&D, so nothing was ever really set in stone. A lot was left to DM discretion. For what it's worth, XP for defeating monsters or for completing story goals, or the invididual class awards, are all presented in the general rules; one XP per gold-value of treasure, and invididual player rewards (for things like good ideas, or role-playing), are presented in a side-bar and marked as clearly optional.

So either everyone gets 1 XP per gold-value, except thieves get 3; or the thief gets 2, and everyone else gets none.
The metagame is not the game.
Interesting.....

So AD&D was basically raiding dungeons while spending less amount of resources.

I experience these type of scenarios before. If one player said,"Screw my wealth"
and earn no profit or lossing profit, the party can have a great advantage from it.

I mostly be this type of player, because unless I am in a war, there no point of saving
resources. May well spend what you got.  

So long as you understand that the "resources" we are talking about are hit points, spells, potions, torches, rations, etc. So, you try to get what you are looking for (which in OD&D and AD&D, even in AD&D 2e with its "story awards", is treasure). If you "spend" your resources by fighting everything (and thus losing hit points and spells, as well as needing to devote your spell resources to combat-oriented magic, as opposed to exploration-oriented magic), you are far less likely to get what it is you were looking for in the first place.

One of the point of Old School D&D was to avoid combat.
You were supposed to acquire treasure while spending the least amount of gold and resources as possible.
But people ejoyed fighting monsters too much.

So the game moved from avoiding monsters to steal hidden gold to killing monsters to take their gold to getting paid to kill troublesome monsters.

Many don't realize this




If the old D&D focus on avoiding monsters and stealing treasure, then why everybody
didn't play as a thief?

 



Older editions where adventure based. The goal was to get in and get out.
Fighting monster drained your resources while getting out.
So Avoiding the traps and monsters was the true utopian goal
But you never could avoid them all.
There were monsters in upredictable numbers in random locations.


That's why you brought the fighter(s) and told the caster(s) to prepare a few combat spells.



Wait, so Fighter was a niche class? :O  That is fascinating.

Wait, so Fighter was a niche class? :O  That is fascinating.




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

Very interesting. You can play as a fighter, but you are advise not to kill everything in
the dungeon.

I guess if you can't complete the dungeon, because you lack the resources then
you can't finish the quest. I guess this is how it works?

I wonder how much exp does the story give? 
Yeah.

In the old editions, there was a dungeon with a monster in less than 30% of the rooms. And there was treasure litter everywhere and a big treasure at the end. But the kobold warren was populated by 40-400 kobolds. If you fought too many kobolds, you'd run out of HP, torches, combat spells. And you'd also waste exploration spell slots on fireballs and spend precious gold on more adventuring gear as you repeated sections of the dungeon (if you were alive still or if someone else did steal the treasure). So monster killing was not the smartest way to advance and kobold xp didn't balance to be entwine in adventure balance.

But starting with mid-late AD&D, the game became more and more about heroics and purposely slaying foes. So monsters got tougher, more interesting, less numerous, and worth more xp. The game wasn't about jumping the goblin/orc/gnoll/kobold patrols and taking the stuff in their storerooms. The game became more and more about taking out the monsters. Not "Get the stolen crown" but "Get the crown and kill all the thieves."

Then the game moved from strategic to tactical with each encounter, combat or noncombat, being a set piece where the spotlight was one multiple PCs instead of one at a time.

D&D was built off a wargame into a logistics-heavy strategy RPG then into a combat-heavy strategy RPG then into a combat-heavy tactical RPG.

And monsters changed accordingly.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Well, I am boiling it down to just killing kobolds.  It's not really a simulation of how the games actually play, just how the numbers come out using kobolds as a common unit of measurement.  It started out as "wouldn't it be funny to express experience progression in terms of dead kobolds."





I enjoyed the comparsion using the kobold metric

I get the need to make a distinction between old school D&D versus recent editions, but in reference to adventure design the main difference is years of experience tends to clarify how adventures should be built. So there really is no difference between old school and new for avoiding monsters, seeking out treasure, or the correct use of resources to survive. That is up to the DM and adventure builders, and the benefit of recent editions is understanding the effects of varied story pacing and DM techniques, so everyone is in a better position to use all the tools at the DMs disposal to make great adventures.
D&D was built off a wargame into a logistics-heavy strategy RPG then into a combat-heavy strategy RPG then into a combat-heavy tactical RPG. And monsters changed accordingly.



Of course there nothing wrong with going into a dungeon with a logistic-heavy point of view.
Fight smarter, not harder. 

That how I win most of my battles in RPG games like final fantasy and etc. 
Clear most of the dungeon, rest up, then kill the boss. 

Edit: Of course, you could rub some DMs the wrong way by playing too smart. 

Oh you could run any style of gameplay with any edition. It was more or less how easy the mechanics made running a certain style for that DM and group.

Earlier editions required a lot of monsters to kill and fewer resources to do it, so it was easier to run a game where the PCs avoided the center of the kobold lair until high levels. Later editions made monsters worth more and handed out more resources so killing the kobolds was easier to run than dodging them.

DDN is somewhere in the middle.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

DDN is somewhere in the middle.



Yup. With bounded accuracy, even large groups of weak monsters can be deadly. 
Give them surprise and tactics to give the party a run for their money. 


Wait, so Fighter was a niche class? :O  That is fascinating.




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

Very interesting. You can play as a fighter, but you are advise not to kill everything in
the dungeon.

I guess if you can't complete the dungeon, because you lack the resources then
you can't finish the quest. I guess this is how it works?

I wonder how much exp does the story give? 

Well, it was never, or at least not always, expected that you would "complete" a dungeon, and indeed exploring the whole dungeon was quite an accomplishment. However, there wasn't a presumed "quest" to finish or not finish. As I have pointed out above, it's not just about raiding people for loot. It's about exploring strange places and looking for treasure. If you fail to find much treasure or discover cool and interesting places to explore, then, I suppose you have failed to "finish the quest", but the quest was generally self-imposed anyway (i.e. you hear of rumors of an ancient citadel in the forest, said to have powerful magic and treasure buried beneath, but also it is said that an ancient evil was entombed there; you are "done" when you've decided not to explore it any more).

In light of this, there was no "story" experience since there was no "story". Players told stories to each other about their games, and I suppose characters also told stories to each other, but D&D wasn't about an unfolding "story" which the DM was telling and in which the players were actors. So, no story XP.
I get the need to make a distinction between old school D&D versus recent editions, but in reference to adventure design the main difference is years of experience tends to clarify how adventures should be built. So there really is no difference between old school and new for avoiding monsters, seeking out treasure, or the correct use of resources to survive. That is up to the DM and adventure builders, and the benefit of recent editions is understanding the effects of varied story pacing and DM techniques, so everyone is in a better position to use all the tools at the DMs disposal to make great adventures.

There is this crucial difference, however, that recent iterations, by presuming that play is geared toward set-pieces of encounters, has produced adventures in that light. Some old AD&D modules read that way a bit, but this is because they were designed for tournament play at conventions, and so they could not be open-ended the way most people played at their own tables at home. Since tournament play can direct you to a non-treasure-hunting goal, an old and a new module might be similar. However, adventure design itself has not gotten better or worse, but rather it has adapted to different player (DM included) expectations of what should be happening at the table.

The size of an all-weakest-kobold encounter is easy to get for 3-5e, but took some guessing with 1e & 2e.  I went with the 2e No. Appearing, which is supposed to be a 'wilderness encounter' and, at 5-20, averages to 12.5, while, for 1e, and found a Random Level I Monsters table in a DMG apendix that gave the bizarre range of 6-18 (that's 6d3), averaging to 12.

Actually, its 4d4+2

1e/2e was riddled with oddball formulas like that.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
 (i.e. you hear of rumors of an ancient citadel in the forest, said to have powerful magic and treasure buried beneath, but also it is said that an ancient evil was entombed there.



Yeah boy, sounds like my type of adventure. 
Clear it, claim it, and then sell it. I'm sure there people interested in an ancient citadel. 

DDN is somewhere in the middle.



Yup. With bounded accuracy, even large groups of weak monsters can be deadly. 
Give them surprise and tactics to give the party a run for their money. 




Large groups of minions played with tactics are pretty deadly in every edition...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

For 2e, don't forget the XP by class chart and the percent bonus to XP for prime req.   Rogues got xp for gold and fighters got xp for each kill. 

Show























































































Award 
Warrior 

Per Hit Die of creature defeated 
10 XP/level 


Priest 

Per successful use of a granted power 
100 XP 
Spells cast to further ethos 
100 XP/spell level* 
Making potion or scroll 
XP value 
Making permanent magical item 
XP value 


Wizard 

Spells cast to overcome foes or problems 
50 XP/spell level 
Spells successfully researched 
500 XP/spell level 
Making potion or scroll 
XP value 
Making permanent magical item 
XP value 


Rogue 

Per successful use of a special ability 
200 XP 
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 
2 XP 
Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only) 
5 XP 



























Player has a clever idea 
50-100 
Player has an idea that saves the party 
100-500 
Player role-plays his character well* 
100-200 
Player encourages others to participate 
100-200 
Defeating a creature in a single combat 
XP value/creature
 



There are also story awards in 2e and other and concepts like the following.

"The DM must decide what constitutes a significant risk to the player characters. Often it is sufficient if the characters think they are in danger, even when they are not. Their own paranoia increases the risk (and enhances the learning experience). Thus, if the party runs into a band of five kobolds and becomes convinced that there are 50 more around the next corner, the imagined risk becomes real for them. In such a case, an experience point reward might be appropriate.

The characters must be victorious over the creature, which is not necessarily synonymous with killing it. Victory can take many forms. Slaying the enemy is obviously victory; accepting surrender is victory; routing the enemy is victory; pressuring the enemy to leave a particular neck of the woods because things are getting too hot is a kind of victory.

A creature needn't die for the characters to score a victory. If the player characters ingeniously persuade the dragon to leave the village alone, this is as much--if not more--a victory as chopping the beast into dragonburgers!


"


AD&D 2E, DMG, page 48

[spoiler Table 34: Invidivual Class Awards]

































































ActionAward
Warrior:
Per Hit Die of creature defeated10 XP / level
Priest:
Per successful use of granted power100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos100 XP / spell level
Wizard:
Spells cast to overcome foes or problems50 XP / spell level
Spells successfully researched500 XP / spell level
























Rogue:
Per successful use of a special ability200 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained2 XP









Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only)5 XP




 [/spoiler]Apologies for the wonkiness of the table.




Class-based XP awards were an interesting way to say you could gain XP and evolve by doing class-related stuff that isn't killing monsters.
Unfortunatelly keeping track or every cast spell, every gold coin earned, every thief ability used... ended up becoming quite tiresome, and many AD&D groups just ignored the above table, compensating this "lost" XP by the DM granting each player a bonus at the end of the session, according to how he felt the player played his class.

Also, I'd like to mention that in AD&D you would get a +10% bonus on all XP earned if you had a 16+ in the class's main ability score (Str for fighters, etc). This was usually the case for most characters, so the OP might want to include that in the math.

@Rastapopoulos  lol great minds think a like.  


IMO, 2e did have a problem with its XP charts.  

The real problem was going from level 8 to 9 (name level), but there were a number of factors that contributed to it.


Cool post, Tony. Yeah, in 1e and 2e, if you do not give XP for treasure and magic items, you level waaaaaaay too slow. I actually houserule B/X to get XP for magic items, even though technically you just get XP for coinage. The leveling is just too slow without it.