Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Lanefan]

Sorry for the delayed response; I don't always get in here every day...

But, Lanefan, sure, that's fine for you. But would you consider yourself to be representative of the majority of gamers out there? Would you consider a 12 year campaign to be the norm?

I certainly wouldn't. WOTC's market research also wouldn't. It was made pretty clear that the average group and campaign lasts about two years tops.

I've said it many times, but once more never hurts: WotC's market research (what they used going in to 3e) was badly-enough flawed to be close to garbage.

I don't know if it's still out there, but there was an article booting around online for a long time by Ryan Dancey regarding that research and how it was conducted. The salient points for this discussion were:

The research was done in the 1998-99 period. If you put your age down as higher than a certain amount (I think it was 35, it might have been lower) your response was thrown out. Which means, all the responses from older gamers, including:
- those who got in during the late '70's-early '80's while in college and stayed in, thus around 20 years old then and mostly too old for the late '90's survey criteria
- those who simply got into the game later in life
- me
were invalidated...yet simple logic dictates that older, more settled players are very likely going to have longer, more settled games and campaigns. But settled campaigns don't represent a high-buy market...

By excluding these responses, they tailored the survey to produce the results they wanted (i.e. to indicate shorter, less stable campaigns as the norm) and then designed the game to suit those results.

Sure, if you are in a situation where you can think that long term, that's great. But, I really don't want to play a game that presumes that as a starting point.

Too bad. But if you ever settle down in Victoria BC, join my game and I'll convince you otherwise.

What's the point of designing a game with assumptions that you know to be untrue most of the time?

And this gets back to the whole design question in my mind. I agree with you actually. I think Gygax and co. did design the game for what they played at THEIR table. This is how it worked for them. I don't think that "balance" was a real consideration beyond what worked at their table.

But, even to that extent, you admit it was a consideration. (see below)

They didn't sit down and work from the position that the game should work at most tables.

And nor should they, really. It was more "here's what works for us, and we know it works; but if it doesn't work for you then tweak it till it does". Quite a different approach than pretty much any edition since...

If you play the way Gygax played, then probably 1e works great for you and it will likely be balanced to a pretty decent degree. Not because balance was a design priority, but because it worked at their table, so it probably will work at yours (not you specifically Lanefan, just the general you this time. ) As soon as you started deviating from those baseline assumptions, balance goes straight out the window.

Ariosto claims that there is a large window for PC wealth, for example. He's right, the 1e DMG gives little to no guidance on how much wealth a PC should have at a particular level. Thus, we see groups where 5th level characters have Vorpal swords and groups where 10th level characters are lucky to have a +1 Spoon.

I would argue that neither group is particularly well balanced. It's only balanced because the DM massages the system so that challenges match up - either bumping up the difficulty by using nastier monsters, or using weaker monsters. Thus we achieve Raven Crowkings "Balance in Play" model. In the end, the game leaves it up to the DM to achieve balance, thus, I would argue, that balance is not a design goal of the game.

Which contradicts what you say above. Balance *was* a design goal, as defined by how balance worked at EGG's table and-or the tables of others with whose games he had experience or knowledge. And even if that balance was intended to be similar to RC's balance-in-play, it's still balance by design.

Lanefan

 

[da chicken]

1E, as a game system, was not balanced at all. The entirity of game balance was established at the most basic level by class restrictions (fighters can't use wands, etc.) but the sole balancing "mechanic" of the game was DM intervention.

The game system itself was pretty ridiculous. 3d6 straight six times for stats? How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted? You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake. A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief? You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?

D&D 1E was designed around the idea that you'd play lots and lots of characters and through a process of natural selection and good die rolling you'd end up with a character that could survive to level 4 or 5. Anybody who played the game significantly was well aware of the fact that PCs were simply not intended to be higher than level 9. You were never supposed to gain a level where you weren't rolling a die for hit points.

The existence of psionics and the Bard at the back of the book was just ludicrous. Yes, the book clearly said they resulted in more powerful characters, but, again, the only balancing mechanic in place was *the DM*.

1E, and 2E along with it -- while beloved as a game system -- were atrocious role playing games. I'm glad they're dead and gone.

 

[Hairfoot]

1 gp gained gave you 1 xp ... find it on the street get an xp.

I really don't know what to say to that. Have you ever met a DM so retarded they would allow such silliness? The cult of literalist rules obedience is a matter for another thread, but getting XP for coins found in the street isn't a serious consideration in this discussion.

My players just saved a village from being magically radiated it wasnt laid out identically as a skill challenge or a trap in part because I like many tend towards informality in that regard (hand waving allowed but not required ;-)). A little more like a multi stage trap with some ingenuity to figure out it was even happening. So boom experience points for this "encounter."

That sounds like a cool scenario. What proportion of the adventure was resolved through combat, and what incentive did the PCs have to avoid fights and find other ways around problems?

Remember, this isn't an edition war. The thread is about 1e, and this segment of it is about the value of awarding XP for treasure.

4e isn't a universal or perfect system. It can't provide every type of game to every type of player, and you don't need to defend it as though it can.

I think that doesn't conform to the literary Conan.

Conan? The Conan? Can I ask how much Conan you've read?

He never killed without reason, but he was a completely amoral thief. And that's rather the point: killing has greater consequences - physical and real - than stealing, and XP for gold encourages players to weigh up the value of hacking through foes versus using cunning to secure goals.

The game system itself was pretty ridiculous. 3d6 straight six times for stats? How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted? You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake. A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief? You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?

That's a misconception of the philosophy behind early D&D character generation.

These days, of course, you write up a 3-page background of your fighter, about how he's a dispossessed demon prince seeking the magical sword of his father to challenge the gods, rah, rah, rah. Then you go and build that character with the justified expectation that he'll have a decent shot at living out the story you've planned for him.

When 1e was written, you rolled up your character, looked at his/her abilities, then decided who that person is. Most members of a party are normal, if talented, people, and if, through sheer luck, they happen to have a paladin, then he is an awesome addition to their power that they are grateful for.

1e wasn't modelled for parties of superhumans in an epic saga, but for bands of brave mortals taking their chances with fate.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the 1e DMG, it is stated quite clearly that the 1 gp = 1 xp formula should be adjusted on the basis of the challenge of gaining that 1 gp. So, following the rules, 1 gp found on the street would be worth, say, 0 XP. However, if a character took on a monster far more powerful than himself, and defeated it through a combination of tactics, planning, and luck, 1 gp might be worth more than 1 xp.


RC

 

[Nikosandros]

However, if a character took on a monster far more powerful than himself, and defeated it through a combination of tactics, planning, and luck, 1 gp might be worth more than 1 xp.

IIRC, there are provisions for lowering the XP value of gold, in case the challenge was easy, but not for increasing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Someone toss Lanefan some XP for me.

 

[Plane Sailing]

1E, as a game system, was not balanced at all. The entirity of game balance was established at the most basic level by class restrictions (fighters can't use wands, etc.) but the sole balancing "mechanic" of the game was DM intervention.

The game system itself was pretty ridiculous. 3d6 straight six times for stats? How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted? You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake. A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief? You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?

D&D 1E was designed around the idea that you'd play lots and lots of characters and through a process of natural selection and good die rolling you'd end up with a character that could survive to level 4 or 5. Anybody who played the game significantly was well aware of the fact that PCs were simply not intended to be higher than level 9. You were never supposed to gain a level where you weren't rolling a die for hit points.

The existence of psionics and the Bard at the back of the book was just ludicrous. Yes, the book clearly said they resulted in more powerful characters, but, again, the only balancing mechanic in place was *the DM*.

1E, and 2E along with it -- while beloved as a game system -- were atrocious role playing games. I'm glad they're dead and gone.

See, this is an excellent example of a threadcrap.

Comes in after goodness knows how many pages explaining different levels on which things may be balanced (enough that some posters have revised their opinions). Contains foolish assertions of fact which don't make sense, insults the game and by extension all those who still enjoy it, and then ends up with the assertion that they are dead and gone when, in actual fact they are still played and enjoyed by lots and lots of people.

Booted from this thread, and if da chicken decides to continue in this manner, he/she will find a longer vacation from ENworld coming.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My god, I SO want to read this book!

Seven years and I've only just noticed the origin of your username

I feel so dense!

 

[Garthanos]

You outright claimed to not know the rule equating GP with XP apparently you mispoke (were you referring to your variant rule for XP gained by distributing the gold?). Nobody I knew cared enough about 1 xp extra you might gain if a gold piece was found on the floor of the bar. (because it was so overshadowed by the other coins gained more extremely) It would have been thrown in the sacks of treasure along with everything else (tallied by the group accountant in no way different).

That sounds like a cool scenario. What proportion of the adventure was resolved through combat, and what incentive did the PCs have to avoid fights and find other ways around problems?

they avoided physical conflict with the beings surrounding the village which turned out to be victims of the same kind of magic that was going to affect the village (foreshadowing) but had been attacked by a couple groups earliery

Remember, this isn't an edition war.

yet you claimed 4e enshrines combat for experience points? how exactly did that contribute? figured you were sadly miss-enformed.

 

[Hairfoot]

You outright claimed to not know the rule equating GP with XP apparently you mispoke (were you referring to your variant rule for XP gained by distributing the gold?). Nobody I knew cared enough about 1 xp extra you might gain if a gold piece was found on the floor of the bar. (because it was so overshadowed by the other coins gained more extremely) It would have been thrown in the sacks of treasure along with everything else (tallied by the group accountant in no way different).

Hard to say what you mean here. I wasn't having a dig earlier about punctuation and sentence structure. I honestly can't understand your posts.

Can you explain in more detail what I outright claimed not to know?

Incidentally, "nobody I knew" doesn't demonstrate anything objective. It's what's know as confirmation bias.

they avoided physical conflict with the beings surrounding the village which turned out to be victims of the same kind of magic that was going to affect the village (foreshadowing) but had been attacked by a couple groups earliery

That's not really enough information to know whether it addresses the question.

What percentage of the game time was spent in combat, by your reckoning, and what proportion of the party's XP derived from kills? How often do your adventures come down to a fight with a BBEG?

yet you claimed 4e enshrines combat for experience points? how exactly did that contribute? figured you were sadly miss-enformed.

I don't understand why you're getting defensive. You tried to put words in my mouth, and I corrected that by giving my opinion on the XP philosophy for 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e.

You can go ahead and dispute my perception of XP throughout editions (though it may go off-topic), but it was a direct contribution to the topic at hand.

Exactly what am I misinformed about?