Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Raven Crowking]

Mine does obviously. You can play 4E in the same style you have always played D&D.

I already said "You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it" -- which is not a pointless metaphor (no matter how much Scribble might wish it so!).


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

These supposed "combat scenes" you describe in 4E are nothing of the sort. The encounter areas I am reading in WotC produced adventures contain information about the setting of the area, motivations of the NPCs, advice on what happens if the players decide to talk instead of fight, and much more that any old "hackfest" dungeon module. The percentage of play spent on 4E combat can vary widely from group to group using the same material.

If combat scenes are not planned then why are so many "encounter areas" set up like prepared stages with description largely confined to the combat relevant features of the area.

The same is true of 4E.

This I can conditionally agree with since my own 4E campaign is more organic and less encounter-centric.

Wrong. Flat out. They are called Encounter Areas. And the 4E DMG points out quite clearly that not all encounters need to end in combat. Each group's approach to these encounters is still intact. There is no more instruction to make an encounter a fight now than there was in 1E-2E-3E.

What about the other way around? What if the players dont give a rat's ass about getting 5 successes before 3 failures?

There are some structured skill challenges in published adventures without stats for NPC's that the PC's come into conflict with because the encounter is set up as a skill challenge.

I never said that all encounters end in combat, just that the adventure makes it pretty clear which ones do and do not.

 

[Scribble]

I already said "You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it" -- which is not a pointless metaphor (no matter how much Scribble might wish it so!).


RC

Pointless in the sense that anyone can make a statement like this, and expect people to accept it as universal truth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pointless in the sense that anyone can make a statement like this, and expect people to accept it as universal truth.

Which is, I imagine, better than burying one's head in the sand. Or better than proclaiming that "X is better than Y! Better yet, X is also exactly the same!"

WotC wasn't shy about telling us their design goals. Overall, I think that they accomplished what they set out to do. We were told first; some of us predicted outcome on that basis; what we see is exactly what was predicted/expected.

As a result, I think that people who don't recognize the change in design parameters simply do not want to.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Which is, I imagine, better than burying one's head in the sand. Or better than proclaiming that "X is better than Y! Better yet, X is also exactly the same!"

Again implying you have some universal truth somewhere.

My own thoughts are that the intended result is the same, the tools we have to get to those results have been improved. Sorry you don't see that, or they don't work for you?

Again if you don't like the game, so what? I'm just tired of the arrogant attitude that if it doesn't work for Raven, then obviously those that it DOES work for have their head in the sand about how they're just forcing it to work.

WotC wasn't shy about telling us their design goals. Overall, I think that they accomplished what they set out to do. We were told first; some of us predicted outcome on that basis; what we see is exactly what was predicted/expected.

As a result, I think that people who don't recognize the change in design parameters simply do not want to.

And I feel that some people who don't see it's the same game with new tools just don't want to. People looking for an outcome will probably find it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And I feel that some people who don't see it's the same game with new tools just don't want to. People looking for an outcome will probably find it.

" The same game" can only be judged by those playing. No one, not a game company, or a random person on the internet can tell you from on high if your game remains the same. After all, were these people at your table prior to the release of system X or even afterwards for that matter?

If not, then the whole claim one way or another is just false.

For my own game, I am enjoying my 4E campaign just fine. Like most systems I had to take it out behind the woodshed and teach it a lesson before it was ready for prime time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again implying you have some universal truth somewhere.

If there is a universal truth out there, it is out there whether we see it or not.

If I make statements about, say, my design goals in RCFG, I feel reasonably certain that there is some level of truth about those goals. If I make statements about what RCFG is, or is not, about, I feel reasonably certain that there is some truth that my statements relate to my design goals.

I tend to assume that, when the 4e designers made statements about their design goals, and as to what they thought the game was (and was not) about, that there is some level of truth to be found there, especially when I see it objectified in the final product.

It is a simple enough process to see if "the intended result is the same" -- simply read through Gary Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, and his advice to DMs in the 1e DMG, then compare it to what what one gets in 4e. Does the advice still apply? Is the intended result still the same? You can say "Yes", of course, but that answer is a horse pill that I can't swallow.

I'm just tired of the arrogant attitude that if it doesn't work for Raven, then obviously those that it DOES work for have their head in the sand about how they're just forcing it to work.

Erm......Where did you get that from?

I am on record as saying that 4e does admirably what the designers set out to do. I am willing even to agree that the designers of 4e more clearly achieved their design goals in the game than Gary Gygax did in his.

But they are not the same design goals, and if your goals are more in keeping with Gary Gygax's, then you need to fit square pegs into round holes when using 4e. If your goals are more in keeping with those of the 4e designers, then you are fitting round pegs into round holes.

4e is a great game, if it is the game you want. Not the first time I've said so, surely not the last. That doesn't mean it is without problems -- no game is -- but that they met their design goals admirably.

If, as some insist, their design goals are the same as those of 1e, then they did a piss-poor job instead. But that isn't what happened.

Having one's head in the sand occurs only when one insists that there is no change in those design goals. That is, AFAICT and IMHO, as self-deluding in claiming that there is no mechanical change between editions.

Of course, if you like, you can simply decide that I am irrational.

(Shrug)

Makes little difference to me.


RC

 

[Scribble]

" The same game" can only be judged by those playing. No one, not a game company, or a random person on the internet can tell you from on high if your game remains the same. After all, were these people at your table prior to the release of system X or even afterwards for that matter?

If not, then the whole claim one way or another is just false.

For my own game, I am enjoying my 4E campaign just fine. Like most systems I had to take it out behind the woodshed and teach it a lesson before it was ready for prime time.

I agree with this completely.

I'm not saying my thoughts are universal truth anymore then any of the other thoughts out there.

For me the game is the same, just with better tools. For others it's not, and that's fine. Just don't tell me I'm "obviously" deluded.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"I like the changes" is not delusional. "There are no changes" is. The design goals of the game designers are not subject to what table you sit at. The goals of the participating players, however, is a different story. If the goals of the participating players are more in line with the goals of the game designers, they are more likely to enjoy the game.

So, sure, one may "play as they always played". Perhaps previously they were pounding square pegs into round holes, and now they have round pegs and holes. In which case, it is obviously not delusional to like the new game! Indeed, it would be strange if the participants did not!


Easy Design Goals questions:

* Is 4e designed to be humancentric?

This is a specific design goal of 1e.

How about placement/inclusion of magic items? Can anyone tell me how this design parameter has changed, and how that change is driven by differing design goals?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".

You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed. It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.

I'm going to quibble slightly. The 4e module design definitely suggests this. I am not convinced the design parameters of the game itself (the game engine, as it were) do this. In fact, with skill challenges and what not, there's more "design" and structure to non-combat events than there was in 3e. Arguably, for non-rogues, there's more structure to non-combat stuff than there has ever been, though my experience with that end of it was always limited since my 1e/2e DMs only ran the game as almost pure combat, anyway.