Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Plane Sailing]

The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas. Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway. I am not benefiting from the advancement? The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit? Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?

That is irrelevant hyperbole. I can't even fathom what point you are trying to make You could equally say that back in the 1950s anyone could pop open the bonnet of their car and fix problems, while nowadays the computer-controller systems in many cars means that they can't be fixed without special equipment at a dealer.

Seems to me that effort was allegedly going into a problem that didn't really exist - and in my opinion didn't do what they wanted it to.

Cheers

 

[diaglo]

No. It proved that consumers can be distracted from what they know. More importantly, on the producer's side it also proved that failing to follow smart designs when they are available can be very bad for business.

There are at least two levels upon which a design goal can be evaluated - utility to the individual, and value to the aggregate. When discussing incremental improvements, for any given design goal or feature, you can probably make an argument that an individual does not really "need" it. However, the value becomes far more clear when viewed in the aggregate of the market, where the actions of large numbers of individuals become visible.

Was the absolute, stunning simplicity of the iPod interface really necessary? Certainly not, as humans are pretty good with gadgets. It is very clear than pretty much any individual can use an mp3 player with a far more complicated and clumsy interface. However, that doesn't mean that interface was not a major reason for the product's success.

Frequently, the extra utility is marginal for each individual - but those marginals can add up when we talk about the product's overall success.

and so we are back to the same thing again.

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that the intent for game balance was there, as I think concerted efforts were made to honor that intent. Ultimately, though, I think that most of those attempts failed.

I will respectfully disagree. As others have pointed out, bypassing balancing aspects of the game on purpose then claiming the game is unblanced isn't fair.

If one were to allow 1st level 4E PC's to start with stats all in the mid 20's then claim that 4E was unbalanced it would be just as bogus.

Claiming that "nobody followed rule X" and then say the game was unbalanced isn't fair to any game.

 

[jdrakeh]

As others have pointed out, bypassing balancing aspects of the game on purpose then claiming the game is unblanced isn't fair.

Good thing I didn't do that, then. As I said, I think that the intent was there and that efforts were made, but that I feel most of those efforts failed. I didn't say that all of those efforts failed. I also didn't say that the game, as a whole, was unbalanced. Nor did I say that "nobody followed rule X" and then claim that this unbalanced the game. In point of fact, I voted for "Other." Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to create a quarrel where none exists.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good thing I didn't do that, then. As I said, I think that the intent was there and that efforts were made, but that I feel most of those efforts failed. I didn't say that all of those efforts failed. I also didn't say that the game, as a whole, was unbalanced. Nor did I say that "nobody followed rule X" and then claim that this unbalanced the game. In point of fact, I voted for "Other." Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to create a quarrel where none exists.

Ease up hoss . Fair enough. What efforts do you think failed and which were a success?

 

[Umbran]

Seems to me that effort was allegedly going into a problem that didn't really exist

My point is that "improvement" does not equate to "fixing problems".

Today, if you were trying to outfit an office worker to do his job, you'd not pick an IBM Thinkpad T-30. There is no "problem" with the T-30. It is a solid workhorse of an office machine, and it'll run Windows XP, web browsers, and MS Office just fine. However, the tech here is from early in the decade - it all functions well, but a T-60, or a T-500 would work *better*.

Lots of folks here talk about how the definition of balance has changed. I think that may be barking up the wrong tree. I think the operative thing is how our understanding of balance has changed.

It seems to me that Gygax and friends had basically the same definition of balance as I do - a game and its characters are balanced when all the basic choices available can leave the player feeling like they are an effective part of the overall game play, that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come to the session, because the other guy gets to do all the fun stuff. That Gary understood this is born out by descriptions of gameplay under him as a GM, and I don't find the idea that he'd leave that out of his intent in designing a game to be credible.

Now, Gary was at the forefront here - so his understanding of how to achieve that goal was limited by inexperience. He was restricted largely to what was in his own head, and in the heads of the relatively small group of people, with only a little playtesting, and little clear feedback. Basically, he was guessing. And while he got the basic idea in place, many of his measures fall short of the mark.

Is 1e AD&D playable? Most certainly. It works, and I like it. I still bring it out for the occasional one-shot. I have to spend some attention to keeping it balanced. This is not a "problem". However, I have to spend less attention (not zero attention, just less) playing with newer systems, designed with better understandings of balance.

In essence, a balanced game is like a faster computer - it makes it easier for me to spend more time doing the things I want to do.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I think EGG set out with balance in mind but went off of the rails with Unearthed Arcana.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Lots of folks here talk about how the definition of balance has changed. I think that may be barking up the wrong tree. I think the operative thing is how our understanding of balance has changed.

It seems to me that Gygax and friends had basically the same definition of balance as I do - a game and its characters are balanced when all the basic choices available can leave the player feeling like they are an effective part of the overall game play, that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come to the session, because the other guy gets to do all the fun stuff. That Gary understood this is born out by descriptions of gameplay under him as a GM, and I don't find the idea that he'd leave that out of his intent in designing a game to be credible.

I agree that the collective understanding of balance has changed. The original intent was that the final level of balance wasn't something that the printed game material could provide. The referee was supposed to provide the most essential elements of game balance.

That understanding has shifted. The expectation today is that the game material should provide any balance essential to the game. This means more rules, more fiddly bits, etc.

The primary reason for this shift is marketing. A product that requires a steeper learning curve does not provide for the instant gratification demands of the modern consumer. Players are demanding more "out of the box" balance and designers are addressing that need.

There are some (like me) that believe the older,simpler systems provide a more satisfying gaming experience primarily because the balance is home brewed. Others prefer more ready made packaged balance. Luckily there are games out to serve the needs of all.

 

[Umbran]

That understanding has shifted. The expectation today is that the game material should provide any balance essential to the game. This means more rules, more fiddly bits, etc.

I believe the expectation today is that the game provide more inherent balance than was present in 1e. I do not think that extends to "any balance essential to the game" - gone a bit too far there, I think.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I believe the expectation today is that the game provide more inherent balance than was present in 1e. I do not think that extends to "any balance essential to the game" - gone a bit too far there, I think.

Oh, quite so. I don't think it has been achieved but the constant post- release tweaking leads me to believe that it is a goal.