Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?


No doubt.

And if you start the white side in chess without half its pawns, and the black side with a pawn already promoted to a second queen ...

I'll bet that, if you devote the same effort to it, you can come up with a similarly unbalanced variant for any other game.

Indeed. Because starting characters above first level is something that never comes up ever and is a wild, crazy idea.

New players never join experienced parties, after all. Characters never die and are replaced. Players never get bored of characters and want new ones. No, thats all crazy talk.

edit- If your point is that new players/characters should start at 1st level, then thats fine. Its just that that represents a limitation enforced by balancing at the scale of the entire campaign.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.
Just one tome? As compared with how many for 3e?

Arcana Evolved
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
Complete Warrior
Dungeon Masters Guide II
Dungeonscape
Iron Heroes
Players Handbook II
Savage Species
Unearthed Arcana
... Etc. ...

I'm just passing through here, but I'd like to point out that none of those are binders or house rules.
 

Because starting characters above first level is something that never comes up ever and is a wild, crazy idea.
It's not a very well informed idea to expect that "eighth level" is some absolute balancing factor.
 
Last edited:

I'm just passing through here, but I'd like to point out that none of those are binders or house rules.
OOOH ... Pardon me a moment, while I pop over to the printing and binding service. There we go! You can call me "Bandwagon Games", if you please. I guess that makes it all officially superior, eh?
 

It's not a very well informed idea to expect that "eighth level" is some sort of balancing factor.

"eighth level" is just a number picked out of a hat.

The point is (simplified), if one class is designed to start weak and become rapidly stronger and another class is designed to start relatively strong and advance slower, then the basic balance is that the first class does well at high levels, while the second does well at low levels. This is all very simple.

This is a balancing mechanism, seemingly designed to ensure that both players get spotlight time (as derived from their mechanics, as player/character personality is independant of that) over the course of a campaign that goes from low levels to high levels. Again, this is very simple.

If your campaign does not go from low levels to high levels, then this doesn't work. I'm going to assume that your answer to this will be that it was assumed that all players had multiple characters spread over a wide level range and that the idea of a "level 8" campaign was bunk. All this does however, is demonstrate another design assumption that limits DM design - that you are going to use a wide population of characters which must be tracked and developed.

If you don't want to do that? Well, too bad. Balancing factors broken down again because you violated the game design assumptions.
 

This is a balancing mechanism ...
Yes, indeed; so, I take it that your answer is, "Yes"?

If your campaign does not go from low levels to high levels, then this doesn't work.
No surprise there, as a "campaign of a certain level" was just nonsense in the original context. But wherefore this assumption that it's a one-way street?

How well does 4e fare in that very same context? Not so well, aver the designers in the DMG.

Different designs for different balances for different goals for different games.
 


If you are starting your game with characters at 8th level, then this balance point is moot. The Wizard is now just stronger than other choices without its main "balance" feature.

They still have terrible AC and hit points and level slower. In fact, if you start at a given XP total, which only makes sense, the wizard may start out lower level. In any case, practical experience suggests people play a variety of classes for a variety of reasons. I know that in Pool of Radiance, my "all fighter/MU plus one cleric/wizard" strategy ultimately proved to be an utter failure, even when I cheated to gain extra XP and maxed out everyone's levels. I think that game had a cap of either 6th or 8th level.

It's true, around 19th level, a MU is going to have dizzying options, but the hit point disparity only gets wider, and that vorpal sword ain't gonna wield itself. In 1e, it was a rare wizard who could outfighter a fighter, even with Tenser's transformation. In 4e, that kind of balance is actually substantially worse, since you never know who is going to crowd in on your turf.

In GURPS, you can spend your points literally anywhere you think is worthwhile. I have found that players appreciate GURPS for its options, rather than decrying that some options are more powerful in some respects than others. Options is options.

Every game does it differently. In AD&D, a wizard has to brave out whatever levels, unless you start out maybe 11th level or higher when they have access to some wilder spells, they get d4s for hit points, max out at +2 hit points per hit die, and get +1 hit point only past 10th level. They have to commit a high enough Int to learn and cast their spells. Meanwhile, a fighter is free to sink a high score into Str or Con. Barring a really low hit point roll at 1st level, he's tough at virtually every level. By 12th level, he might begin to look a little like the M-U's assistant, except, well, he owns a castle and commands hundreds of men-at-arms of his own and has a sword that can pierce the hide of any monster, and three or four times as many hit points as a M-U.
 

OOOH ... Pardon me a moment, while I pop over to the printing and binding service. There we go! You can call me "Bandwagon Games", if you please. I guess that makes it all officially superior, eh?

The snarky sarcasm is unbecoming and counter to friendly discussion.
 

I think you just reductioed your own absurdum!
I could have a hardbound volume gathering dust beside countless others on retailers' shelves next week, if I had the money to burn.

Please look up the argument to which this was specifically a counter-argument, rather than take it out of context.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top