Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Ariosto]

The difference in 4E is likely to be 1 or 2 points at most.

Or 2 or 4 levels, averaging to the same 3 as for an 18/00 in 1E.

Erm - what 4e fighter will have a 10 Strength?

Good point! In 4E, you had darned well better put your highest roll there, eh? After all, a 14 or 15 gives you a +2 to hit and on damage -- versus no bonus to either in 1E.

 

[ggroy]

However, those 1st level experiences aren't meant to drag on. The speed of combat as well as XP for treasure will mean that the 1st level magic-user reaches 2nd and 3rd level fairly rapidly. (AD&D games that have PCs stay at 1st level for years are terribly outside the pale).

I knew of one DM who really dragged things on in his 1E AD&D games. Basically it took 3 or 4 years of playing every week to level up even a single level. The game was a total revolving door of players who were really bored out of their skulls most of the time, with the DM completely oblivious to it.

At most games, the players ending up doing other things like watching TV, playing video games, falling asleep, reading a book, etc ... while the DM was going through minutiae in excruciating detail. Stuff like spending an entire 5 hour game session going through the player characters setting up camp for an evening. Then the next 5 hour game session would be spent going through the minutiae of walking through the forest to the destination. (Ad nauseum).

I think this DM was a high functioning autistic, who was completely clueless about pacing.

 

[The Little Raven]

In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight.

My experience with 1e is as follows.

Low levels - The wizard blows his small pool of spells, then proceeds to play on his Game Boy, since he has no chance of being effective in any other regard.

High levels - The fighter and thief play on their Game Boys while the wizard mops up whatever challenge is presented.

In order to avoid these problems, I've found DMs have had to spend more time doing game design than adventure/world/setting design. So, they bought a game they had to fix before they could play it in a way that made it fun for everyone involved.

Basically, it was balanced on the assumption that you'd do it Gygax's way (which is nebulous, since it's known that he ignored vast swathes of his own rules).

 

[Thunderfoot]

I voted no - but for many of the reasons that some folks voted yes.

The term "balance" is a modern paradigm word that means everyone is equal - which is total horse puckey! The world isn't equal, it takes some people longer to get there than others and once some of those folks are there, they just aren't going to get any further while others are just gonna keep going.

Did the system play in a balance with itself - yes, did the rules lay out what balance was - no, but it was stated in the DMG that this was the DM's job, something the newer rules are slowly squeezing out of the system. A good DM used to be the one that had the awesome game because even if things went wrong for the party and a TPK ensued, it was because of decisions made by the party, not some power hungry control freak. Now the term TPK is synonymous to hyperbolic stuff.

This doesn't mean the new is better or worse or that 1AD&D is archaic in thought, just that balance was a thought of in a different light between then and now.

 

[ggroy]

My experience with 1e is as follows.

Low levels - The wizard blows his small pool of spells, then proceeds to play on his Game Boy, since he has no chance of being effective in any other regard.

High levels - The fighter and thief play on their Game Boys while the wizard mops up whatever challenge is presented.

In order to avoid these problems, I've found DMs have had to spend more time doing game design than adventure/world/setting design. So, they bought a game they had to fix before they could play it in a way that made it fun for everyone involved.

This is what I did when I use to DM 1E AD&D games back in the day. I thought it was pointless in playing AD&D strictly by the rules as written, where several players were largely bored out of the their skulls.

 

[The Little Raven]

This is what I did when I use to DM 1E AD&D games back in the day. I thought it was pointless in playing AD&D strictly by the rules as written, where several players were largely bored out of the their skulls.

Word.

I like games that inspire me to bust out my game designer cap and wrench on them for a bit. I despise games that require me to do so.

 

[ggroy]

I like games that inspire me to bust out my game designer cap and wrench on them for a bit. I despise games that require me to do so.

The problem I found back in the day was that 1E AD&D was the only rpg game that many of the players and I had in common. Suggesting other games with a similar theme was literally a non-starter (such as Runequest, DragonQuest, etc ...). In the end, we were largely stuck with playing AD&D with all kinds of changes to the rules.

 

[Stormonu]

I very much believe 1E was balanced, but it was designed for long term, over-the-course-of-the-campaign balancing vs. 4E's instant gratification balancing act.

Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level. The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities. One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be. Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.

 

[ggroy]

Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level. The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities. One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be. Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.

There was WG6 "Isle of the Ape" which was level 18 and above.

 

[MerricB]

I very much believe 1E was balanced, but it was designed for long term, over-the-course-of-the-campaign balancing vs. 4E's instant gratification balancing act.

Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level. The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities. One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be. Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.

Isle of the Ape, by Gary Gygax, which began exploring the higher level rules (and added in a few new ones, such as negative to hit numbers representing additional damage).

18th+ level characters, plus pregens.

Cheers!