Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[billd91]

Humans are more versatile in that they can perform equally well in all classes. They can choose any class and still gain all of their benefits.

A superior (in my opinion) method of showing humans as the more versatile race, while not removing choices from those that wish to play non humans.

I can't say I have a problem with rebalancing the PC races so that no character is completely shut out of a profession or even seriously hampered in one. But I can't agree that it goes anywhere to promoting a humanocentric world like 1e's design goal. I think that's a terrible stretch.

 

[bardolph]

It was designed to be a balanced game.
There's more to game balance than a rules system.

Not really. The rules were designed to be balanced, but the game did not succeed very well in this aspect.

AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.

It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Scribble and Raven Crowking, take a break from each other or you'll end up booted from the thread.

It's been a mostly interesting discussion up until the last couple of pages. I'd rather not close the thread but I may have to if it devolves into edition warring.

That's the warning, folks.

Thanks

 

[Chainsaw]

Not really. The rules were designed to be balanced, but the game did not succeed very well in this aspect.

AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.

It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.

Not to be contentious, but.. my friends and I largely played games with 2-3 players consisting of a couple thieves and a wizard and we had an AWESOME time... recapturing that fun and comraderie is the only reason I even came back to RPGs as an adult.

I think it can be tough to generalize across the "old days" (and maybe the "new days" too) because of how customizable D&D was (and is). Like I said, we played mostly thieves and wizard types and had fun. Of course, we probably weren't playing by the same rules you were, but that's why it's tough to generalize about D&D..

 

[Plane Sailing]

AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.

It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.

Unprecedented success of D&D up to 1e says you're wrong here, mate! Thousands of people all across the world had huge amounts of fun playing all manner of different character classes.

I'd be tempted to characterise the early 80's as not so much the wild west but rather a golden age in terms of availability of game systems, game manufacturers, magazines and fanzines.

Furthermore, I think that Elbeghast is right - the focus of AD&D was more on the game than the rules per se. It is the same thing that others have already said about AD&D being balanced for the players rather than the characters, challenging for the players rather than the characters.

Regards,

 

[bardolph]

Not to be contentious, but.. my friends and I largely played games with 2-3 players consisting of a couple thieves and a wizard and we had an AWESOME time... recapturing that fun and comraderie is the only reason I even came back to RPGs as an adult.

I think it can be tough to generalize across the "old days" (and maybe the "new days" too) because of how customizable D&D was (and is). Like I said, we played mostly thieves and wizard types and had fun. Of course, we probably weren't playing by the same rules you were, but that's why it's tough to generalize about D&D..

I never said it wasn't fun. Just that it wasn't balanced.

Believe me, most games I played in had their fair share of thieves and wizards. Why? Because most players don't have any clue how useless they're going to be - they just know that wizards and thieves are SEXY, and they get lured in by dreams of stealing stuff from their friends or of being an all-powerful lightning-crackling god on earth. It just doesn't pan out that way on the table.

Part of the fun comes from realizing that once you've cast your one sleep for the day, you're now totally defenseless and vulnerable and that even a stiff breeze might kill you. As a thief, it gets even better, since your whole purpose in life is to roll against a 5%-25% chance of success to avoid some kind of lethal death trap that will knock you of the adventure. But if you get lucky, you get to the treasure first, and can try to keep it from your friends!

The funny thing is, danger is fun, and so players still can have a good time. But the fun had very little to do with how well balanced the rules were.

I always thought it was ironic how many pages of ink were spent describing spells that will never be used in the vast majority of games. It makes great reading, though, and definitely sets the mood for the game.

 

[Chainsaw]

I never said it wasn't fun. Just that it wasn't balanced.

I hear you. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. If the way the classes compared with each other balance-wise was in error, I'm not sure anyone in my group noticed or would have wanted it corrected if it had even been brought to their attention. Like I said, it's very difficult to generalize about or even compare RPG experiences because of how customizable they are. Half the time when I read arguments on here, I'm waiting for someone to inadvertently spill that they did/didn't follow X rule and for the other guy to go, "Oh well, if that's the case then we totally agree." Unfortunately there are so many variables in D&D that getting on the same page with someone can be tough without actually playing with them.

 

[bardolph]

I hear you. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. If the way the classes compared with each other balance-wise was in error, I'm not sure anyone in my group noticed or would have wanted it corrected if it had even been brought to their attention.

In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.

Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.

Another variant I encountered often was the NPC Thief Henchman that the DM ran most of the time, but would "lend out" to guests whenever someone new wanted to play but didn't have time to roll a new character. This situation was usually very entertaining, since the guest player would invariably do what they do best, which is set off traps and/or steal stuff from the party, so if the traps didn't knock them out, the party fighter would (aided by the cleric, of course)!

Like I said, it's very difficult to generalize about or even compare RPG experiences because of how customizable they are. Half the time when I read arguments on here, I'm waiting for someone to inadvertently spill that they did/didn't follow X rule and for the other guy to go, "Oh well, if that's the case then we totally agree." Unfortunately there are so many variables in D&D that getting on the same page with someone can be tough without actually playing with them.

Agreed. A major design goal of the later editions was to give the game more longevity without needing the DM to resort to these kinds of techniques.

 

[billd91]

In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.

Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.

I have to say that's totally different from my experience. Mine suggests that 1e did far better at achieving balance as a whole despite lack of balance between some character build options. Had 3e never come around, we'd be pretty content to keep playing 1e.

Agreed. A major design goal of the later editions was to give the game more longevity without needing the DM to resort to these kinds of techniques.

For us, the coming up with house rules had a lot more to do with getting rid of cumbersome rules and not trying to rebalance things to keep a game running long term. So we got rid of weapon vs armor adjustments, the wacky unarmed combat rules, casting times and initiative. Not a lot of serious balance issues in any of these, just stuff to streamline how the game is administered.

 

[Chainsaw]

For us, the coming up with house rules had a lot more to do with getting rid of cumbersome rules and not trying to rebalance things to keep a game running long term. So we got rid of weapon vs armor adjustments, the wacky unarmed combat rules, casting times and initiative. Not a lot of serious balance issues in any of these, just stuff to streamline how the game is administered.

Same types of changes we had.. we didn't really rejigger the classes directly.