Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Bullgrit]

Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?

I'm not asking if it was/is balanced, just if it was intended to be balanced.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

I voted yes. The DMG is filled with references about game balance being a primary consideration in a DM's rulings.

Remember that the game balance in AD&D is something to be achieved through a combination of rules and good judgement, not dictated by the rules alone.

 

[pdiddy]

I voted other.
I believe that there was some intended balance but it was not based on a point in time.

Instead the balance has to be viewed in terms of Dissimilar Assets and Resource Management. Magic-users are very different from Fighters who are very different from Clerics who are very different from Thieves. At any point in time (for example when everyone has around 8,000 XP), there are very different strengths and weaknesses between classes. These relative strengths and weaknesses change over time.

However, another important thing to remember was that the game was designed to challenge the player instead of the character - how do you balance that?

 

[Mallus]

Absolutely.

The ways in which game balance is considered and methods used to addresses balance issues have changed a good deal, but 'balance', and more specifically 'balance between character classes/races' has always been a design concern in D&D. Like EW says, this is plainly evident in the rules.

The idea that older editions didn't care a whit about balance is ridiculous.

 

[Treebore]

Yes, agreed, looking at the rules, magic items allowed, spells allowed at which level, etc... its obvious game "balance" was desired. It worked fairly well, as I recall.

In fact I have been giving thought to trying to put together a campaign again, because the couple of short games I have played over the last year worked far better than I would have thought based on the opinions of many I have read on the internet. It confirmed my memories of a very playable and fun game.

So I would like to see how a full campaign runs, modifying it with house rules based on my additional 20 years of gaming since last running a 1E campaign.

 

[jgbrowning]

I voted other. It was designed for game balance, but a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.

joe b.

 

[Bullgrit]

a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.

Can you elaborate on this idea?

Bullgrit

 

[DaveyJones]

it was designed for fun.

balance was one of the elements. but clearly it is not the same balance bantered about in newer editions.

 

[jgbrowning]

Can you elaborate on this idea?

Bullgrit

Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible. Balance is focused on the mechanical aspects of adjudication. AD&D balance is more along the line of "meta-balance" - balance in the sense of the role's ability placed within the context of the game world's pretend environment.

joe b.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, by arbitrary rules. When people decided that playing by those arbitrary rules (blunt weapons for Clerics, no armor for Magic-users, racial level limits, etc.) wasn't desirable anymore it took a new form of balance to "straighten things out."

Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible.

I would prefer to call the new kind of balance "equally able to contribute to the team's success in a challenge."

Saying "as equal to each other in combat as possible" IMO infers that a Fighter should be able to go one-on-one with a Ranger and have an equal chance of winning the combat. This is not the case.