Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The "logical" explanation for why there are wandering monsters is separate from their game function, which is inherent in the rules for XP, time, and exploration. The threat of wandering monsters encourages players to set a goal and keep it in mind, to avoid wasting time on things like detailed mapping and searching every little inch of the place, et cetera. In that sense, wandering monsters certainly act to limit and focus exploration.

Indeed. The relevant sections can be found on page 103 of the PHB and page 97 of the DMG (1E versions). From both the DM and players perspectives there are warnings and admonitions about wasting time and the effect such activity can have on wandering monster frequency.

I guess I was more puzzled over the inherent mapping activity in 1E. I agree witht the above.

I have not looked at that Second Edition module in a while. The AD&D1 rules, though, do not stipulate random encounters that happen "regardless of player action". Indeed, the primary purpose of wandering monsters is to discourage certain choices of action -- in general, the choice of wandering without a clear objective, at a snail's pace due to "pixel bitching" each step. (Naturally, there are no wandering monsters in the Tomb of Horrors).

The only action the players could take in WGR1 to avoid random encounters was to not travel back and forth between the City of Greyhawk and the ruins. What I meant was that players who take reasonable precautions to avoid bandits in the original module still have a 1 in 6 chance, rolled 3 times, of encountering bandits each time they approach or leave the ruins.

As it appears in the 4e DMG I have, it is to my mind atrocious -- but to my mind it "needs a lot of work" the way a torture device might. I am hardly inclined to fork out more money to find out how it has been "improved". And now? Is it exciting and meaningless? See, it's not the dice rolls "having no real effect" that concerns me. As a player, I would like to get on with actually playing a game.

So you never roll skill checks? Of course you do. And the Skill Challenge setup, if used in an interesting way, will seem just as organic as the skill rolls called for without them while also rewarding your players for completing a non-combat challenge.

Yeah, can't be anything so elaborate in ol' Grimtooth's eh? I mean, never mind the lack of data for a 4e dice-fest -- there are NO game mechanics at all!

Point taken. I did use those quite often back in 1E. My point still stands that folding traps into combat statistics in 4E has some logical basis.

What, again, is it that keeps players from being "engaged" without 4e "skill challenges"? I missed that part. So, yeah, Yeah, obviously NOBODY got to play D&D before getting Supplement I. ???

Nothing keeps them from being engaged without a skill challenge. Your premise is that skill challenges are useless. I've given reasons why I disagree with that. Do I think everyone should use skill challenges? No. Dismiss them if you want, but I've found some interesting ways to incorporate them in my game and I will continue to share those ideas on these boards.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Ah, but 1E had a false humanocentric assumption amongst player choices. They gave no real reason to play a human. Demi-humans were objectively better than humans execpt for their level limits.

And this is NOT what was meant by "humanocentric" in 1E.

I'm going to relay a big, quoted chunk here. Under the heading of "The Monster as a Player Character" it's noted that players want to play monsters since they see them as superior to their PC peers and would provide a dominant role, and that reflection reveals the game is heavily weighted toward mankind. It goes on to say:

Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D's of demi-gods, demons and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In cooperation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or aquired power from spells or monsters. [emphasis mine]

The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role from which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too! Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.

By having a basis to work from, and a well-devleoped body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed. To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?

In other words, the humanocentric design goal of 1E has little to do with equality of PC character power and game mechanics but everything to do with roleplaying and campaign design. The game ORIENTS around humanity because we can all relate to humanity since we are all human. This, as opposed to a game which doesn't even feature humanity at all and ONLY deals with elves, dwarves, and other creatures with distinctly alien, NON-human perspectives. And in any case, where it does enforce this perspective with rules you CANNOT throw out level limits and then be surprised when it doesn't make sense WITHOUT level limits.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In other words, the humanocentric design goal of 1E has little to do with equality of PC character power and game mechanics but everything to do with roleplaying and campaign design. The game ORIENTS around humanity because we can all relate to humanity since we are all human. This, as opposed to a game which doesn't even feature humanity at all and ONLY deals with elves, dwarves, and other creatures with distinctly alien, NON-human perspectives. And in any case, where it does enforce this perspective with rules you CANNOT throw out level limits and then be surprised when it doesn't make sense WITHOUT level limits.

In other other words, "play how I want you to play." You can still have a humanocentric world without forcing players to play humans so they can reach high level, without forcing DMs to drop level limits because they don't ascribe to Gary's way of thinking, or without forcing DMs to limit their campaigns to name level. The latter two options were used by so many gaming groups that level limits were dropped officially in all but OD&D and 1E (Even BECMI had advancement for demihumans beyond the artificial limits set).

 

[Raven Crowking]

In other other words, "play how I want you to play."

Yes. Absolutely. Even though it is true that Gary Gygax gave explicit permission to play in other ways, every game (including 1e, 4e, and RCFG) is designed to be played in a specific way. The designer's views of "the best/most fun way to play" informs the design goals of the designer(s), whether they are aware of it or not.

Gary Gygax was merely upfront about what he thought was the best/most fun way to play, and why. Some of his reasoning I agree with; some I do not. However, his reasoning and design goals are different than the reasoning and design goals of the designers of 3e, 4e, and even 2e.

Heck, the design goals of AD&D 1e and Basic D&D are explicitly different.

Any game has its "best play" experience occur when the user and the designer have the same end goal in mind. Note that I do not mean here the best play experience a given specific person can have; I mean the optimum experience available to the optimum user for that system.

You can still have a humanocentric world without forcing players to play humans so they can reach high level, without forcing DMs to drop level limits because they don't ascribe to Gary's way of thinking, or without forcing DMs to limit their campaigns to name level.

Sure you can. All you have to do is make humans, in some way, the best choice. It doesn't matter what way this is done in. All that matters is that it is done.

IOW, if all options are equal, there is no "central" option.

It was an intentional design goal in 3e to decentralize options (as opposed to the humanocentric 1e). I would argue that decentralized options were an unstated goal of 2e, which saw splatbooks for every race except humans, and saw official endorsement for monster PCs.

1e's mechanics were informed by its design goals. 2e's mechanics were modelled off of 1e's, but the design goals were far more similar to those of 3e. It was a mismatch of mechanics and goals that, ultimately, hurt the system. 3e was not "1e with better mechanics"; it was, if anything, "2e with better mechanics (in some cases)". Prestige classes offered a more balanced take on kits. The 2e skill system was refined and improved. The 2e idea of the bard was retained. Even the early 3e spaltbooks followed the basic model of the "Complete Book" series.

And, perhaps, for the majority, the design goals of 4e, 3e, and/or 2e lead to a better game than the design goals of Gary Gygax in 1e. But they are different design goals, leading to different "best play" experiences. All this means is that these games have a different set of optimum users.

You know, I've never heard anyone who prefers checkers to chess claim that checkers is chess with better rules. Perhaps we are letting the name of the game(s) blind us when attempting to view what these games seek to accomplish? 4e can "be D&D" without being "1e with better rules".


RC

 

[bardolph]

Overpowered how? If your first level characters need a lock picked, the thief is overpowered.

No. The thief was underpowered. The % chance of actually succeeding at any of the tasks the thief was supposedly "good" at was so low that it was only slightly better than no chance at all.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

25% is pretty damn good for a first level character.

 

[Votan]

25% is pretty damn good for a first level character.

True, but you cannot plan around it in adventure design. And if there is a simple way to bypass the lock (that will end up being used 75% of the time) then it is hard to make the thief look essential.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Heck, none of the Thief's functions are essential, anyway. Making him "look" essential is about the best that could be expected.

 

[Votan]

Heck, none of the Thief's functions are essential, anyway. Making him "look" essential is about the best that could be expected.

True. But I see it as good design to have different roles contribute in neat ways. One of the ironies of AD&D is that the skill based hero is close to the modern default archetype and yet it seems quite under-powered.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

No. The thief was underpowered. The % chance of actually succeeding at any of the tasks the thief was supposedly "good" at was so low that it was only slightly better than no chance at all.

Even on success, it often didn't make a hell of a lot of difference. For example, consider that the Players Handbook equates moving silently with magical silence, and goes on to give an example where a party that is both invisible and magically silenced gets a 2 in 6 better chance to surprise (4 in 6, rather than the standard 2 in 6).

So a Thief who tries to move silently and fails is still moving quietly; he just doesn't enjoy the same kind of surprise bonus that he would, otherwise. And a Thief who makes his move silently roll doesn't necessarily auto-surprise, but he gets a better chance to surprise (maybe 1 in 6 better, in an otherwise standard situation).

(I'm not a big fan of the Thief class, as it came to be. I think there's probably a place for the archetype, I just don't like its implementation.)