It Did Not End with a Mere Slaying of Ogres: Treasure as a Source of Challenge in D&D

It's easy to think of treasure as purely reward - the player characters have overcome the challenges of the dungeon or wilderness and have slain some monster in its lair. The monster's treasure hoard (if any) is some collection of coins, gems, jewelry, and occasionally even magic items, all for the player characters' taking. 

However, just because the dungeon or wilderness and its inhabitants have been defeated, the challenge needn't end there. The recovery of treasure poses its own challenges. From PLACEMENT OF MONETARY TREASURE in the AD&D DMG, beginning on page 91:

The first challenge posed by treasure is one of transportation. However, of the treasure types listed in the appendix of the Monster Manual, all but the coins are readily transportable. But coins pose a problem only in large quantities - although it is worth mentioning that monsters' treasure hoards (in their wilderness lairs) only ever contain most denominations of coin in the thousands:

Even then, the movement of large amounts of coin is one of those low-level setbacks in D&D which is often eventually trivialized by the accumulation of equipment or magical ability - just as past a certain point players will likely have magical means of providing light, creating food and water, traveling overland, and even coming back from the dead, they will likely some day acquire a bag of holding, handy haversack, portable hole, or a personal demiplane in which to stuff vast sums of cumbersome coins. Thus it would be insufficient to say that transportation is the sole or ultimate means of challenge posed by treasure.

While not at all related to this subject, since I'm analyzing this section of the DMG I feel the need to call out this bit:

This suggests that it is not so simple as to say that, for example, all minotaur groups possess treasure type C, which means that, among other treasures, they have a 30% chance of possessing 1,000 to 6,000 silver coins. Rather, minotaurs have a 30% chance of possessing silver coins, and because they appear in groups of 1 to 8, a group of 8 will have the maximum 6,000, while a pair of 2 will have 25% of that, a group of 4 will have 50%, and so on. 

Or perhaps we're meant to roll to determine the amount of silver coins and then adjust that number according to the actual number of minotaurs relative to the theoretical maximum (for example, if I have just one minotaur and roll to determine that it has 3,000 silver pieces, I might then divide that number by 8 because the actual number of minotaurs is one eighth of the maximum, giving it 375 silver). I could be misinterpreting what Gygax is saying, but that's my takeaway. Kind of weird that this bit is buried in a single sentence in the DMG! But I digress.

Continuing on, Gygax next suggests that treasure comes in forms not listed in the Monster Manual appendix:

(At this point I feel I could write an essay on the use of the Gygaxian "of course".)

Rather than blindly rolling on the treasure table to assign a monster heaps of coins, gems, jewelry, magic items, and the like, the DM is meant to "Assign each monster treasure, or lack thereof, with reason". Brigands, giant rats, and centipedes will all have their own treasure types as listed in the Monster Manual, but ("of course") the treasure will manifest itself differently according to the qualities of the monster in question:

(I thought it worth highlighting that, "naturally" - the cousin of the Gygaxian "of course" - monsters without treasure will "hate and envy" those with treasure - an opportunity for the players to engage in some social manipulation between enemies, albeit with bedfellows they'll later have to reckon with if they want the treasure for themselves.)

Again Gygax describes types of treasure not found in the treasure tables:

Here Gygax is once more describing a method other than blindly rolling on tables to generate results. Rather than randomly determining by a roll of the dice that a monster with a huge treasure hoard like, for example, a dragon, is lairing right in the middle of a settled region, he suggests that these creatures and their treasure should reside in "more inaccessible regions". 

This same principle is described earlier under MONSTER POPULATIONS AND PLACEMENT on pages 90 and 91:

Likewise, orc warbands in a settled region should be small relative to those found in true wilderness (monster populations in inhabited areas and wilderness regions can differ on the basis of "individual prowess" or "due to numbers"). While those two groups of orcs, according to the treasure table, might have the same chance at possessing copper, silver, electrum, gems, jewelry, and magic items, this suggests that those in "more inaccessible regions" should somehow have a greater chance of possessing more valuable treasure (or that those in more accessible regions should have a lesser chance of possessing it).

There is something to be said of the fact that Gygax simultaneously provides a bunch of tables for randomly determining placement of settlements, strongholds, ruins, monster lairs, and treasures contained within while also telling the DM that they should do all of this according to reason, but I won't get into it more than I already have. At the very least, it's justification to reroll a result you don't like. Suffice it to say that I enjoy my "Disneyland" campaigns just fine, thank you very much.

Returning to PLACEMENT OF MONETARY TREASURE, the example provided is illuminating:

Rather than simply possessing 2,000 gold pieces, the ogres in the example have a variety of treasure (including mundane items like food and provisions, helmets, and a bardiche) which in sum total amount to the aforementioned 2,000 gold pieces. What I think this means is that if I use the treasure table to determine that the ogres possess 2,000 gold pieces, I'm supposed to then invent a variety of more specific items of treasure that add up to that amount, not just dump a pile of 2,000 gold pieces in their lair and call it a day.

This is complicated by the inclusion in the example of the 350 gold piece silver necklace, which I imagine would fall under jewelry. I assume that if I roll up a number of gems, jewelry, or magic items that these are left as is. It is only the coinage in the treasure hoard that needs breaking down into more flavorful units of treasure. We already have a procedure/tables for doing the same to gems and jewelry:

So the inclusion of the silver necklace in the example of the ogres is either an oversight or I'm again over-interpreting Gygax and he's instead suggesting an entirely different way of determining the specific contents of a treasure hoard which, for whatever reason, he doesn't care to elucidate.

The latter highlighted section in the ogre example again brings up the issue of transportation, but also the challenge of recognizing all of the items of value. Saying simply that the ogres possess 2,000 gold pieces is too easy. By instead providing a weird insurance guy's actuarial accounting of every item of value in the ogres' lair, the players are challenged with spending time actually sorting through all of this junk to find the good stuff - and if they want to reap the full benefits of their 2,000 gold piece reward, they will need to figure out how to take all of that (junk included) with them.

There is time pressure as well. The treasure won't wait for the player characters to return for the rest of it. Gygax ominously portends the challenge ahead with a deftly-employed Boomer ellipsis: "It did not end with a mere slaying of ogres..."

Yet the ogre example is a bit of weak one. I don't really see a party of player characters having much trouble hauling all of this out in one go. The challenge is better illustrated in the next example:

Here we even get a supercharged Boomer ellipsis with a space between each period ("What a problem . . ."). I'm delighted that even the "so useful" and "so devoted" henchmen get a special shoutout here. They may expect a fair share of the treasure, but even they're not stupid enough to stay behind and guard it. There are more monsters coming!

All of this challenge ("of course") is in the name of preventing too much treasure from falling into the player characters' hands (a possibility with which Gygax is particularly preoccupied, and which he goes to great lengths to prevent with his advice throughout the DMG). 

This isn't Gygax making things onerous for its own sake. Treasure is how characters advance in AD&D. The more treasure they accumulate, the more powerful they become, and the more powerful they become, the less challenging the game is. The accumulation and retention of treasure is a specific challenge necessary to maintain the overall challenge of the game. 

This lack of funds is what motivates the players to adventure, as Gygax describes multiple times throughout the DMG:

(STARTING LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS, page 12)

(ACQUISITION OF MAGIC-USER SPELLS, page 39)

At the conclusion of PLACEMENT OF MONETARY TREASURE, Gygax suggests additional ways to counterbalance the accumulation of wealth, and again draws the connection between the challenge of treasure retention, the overall challenge of the campaign, and the call to adventure:

There are no free lunches in AD&D. Like everything else in the game, treasure is a challenge to be overcome, even after it's been "earned".