Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[pawsplay]

Ok, I think I'm understanding where you are coming from here.

What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct?

The classic example would be 4e's PC resource system. Every class has X at-wills, X-dailies, X-encounters and so forth. Apart from minor variations, every class has to follow this system or the system starts to wobble. Conversely, 3e deliberately experimented with different systems: monks and their daily stunning fists, warlocks with endless invocations, wizards with spell slots, fighters with mostly reusable but situational abilities, crusaders with random replenishing, and so forth.

 

[Bullgrit]

In a 1E game if my 7th level character dies, I can rejoin the game at any point between 1st and 7th without the party falling apart. Try having a 1st level party member along on a 7th level 4E adventure and see how it goes.

A party of 7th-level PCs, one dies and is replaced with a 1st-level PC.

In every edition of D&D, such a group will be less powerful as a whole, and the new PC will very likely die in any violent confrontation that's a challenge for a full 7th-level party.

I don't see how a party would "fall apart" in any edition. I don't see how the new PC would survive long in any edition. [I've never played D&D4.]

How do you think the edition would make a significant difference ("fall apart") in the result for the party or the new PC?

Bullgrit

 

[Gimby]

Agreed.

But what happens when a game is balanced at the design stage?


RC

Typo/terminology failure on my part there, blame the flu . That post is for a game thats balanced at the design stage. If you are balancing at the play stage *and are concerned about play balance* (theres no reason you'd have to be, and if you aren't thats fine) then you have to worry about relative power levels, tailored challenges and so on.

The classic example would be 4e's PC resource system. Every class has X at-wills, X-dailies, X-encounters and so forth. Apart from minor variations, every class has to follow this system or the system starts to wobble. Conversely, 3e deliberately experimented with different systems: monks and their daily stunning fists, warlocks with endless invocations, wizards with spell slots, fighters with mostly reusable but situational abilities, crusaders with random replenishing, and so forth.

Sure, thats a good example. The issue is more that in the opinion of many people, 4e wobbles if you fiddle with the power structure, but 3e fell off the pivot before you started. You've got to be careful with ensuring the 4e balance doesn't topple, but you need to build the 3e balance from the ground up, which is work that I at least am not interested in doing.

 

[pawsplay]

Sure, thats a good example. The issue is more that in the opinion of many people, 4e wobbles if you fiddle with the power structure, but 3e fell off the pivot before you started. You've got to be careful with ensuring the 4e balance doesn't topple, but you need to build the 3e balance from the ground up, which is work that I at least am not interested in doing.

That's not an issue for me. I've loved my 3e campaign, from 1st level to 18th.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A party of 7th-level PCs, one dies and is replaced with a 1st-level PC.

In every edition of D&D, such a group will be less powerful as a whole, and the new PC will very likely die in any violent confrontation that's a challenge for a full 7th-level party.

I don't see how a party would "fall apart" in any edition. I don't see how the new PC would survive long in any edition. [I've never played D&D4.]

How do you think the edition would make a significant difference ("fall apart") in the result for the party or the new PC?

Bullgrit

Yes the group will be less powerful as a whole. That is a given in any edition.

The 7th level party will presumably know that they have a greenhorn with them and select opportunities that the new member can contribute to.

In 4th edition the numbers balloon up to the point where a 1st level character just doesn't have the bonuses needed to affect creatures of higher level. In practice, monsters and the DC's associated with all challenges keep in step with the party level. There is variance. A typical adventure will feature challenges both below and above party level. A difference of a level or two in the party will be noticed but not catastrophic. A difference of six levels would be.

In a 1E game a typical unaltered monster has a much longer "shelf life". An umodified bugbear can be a viable threat from 1st all the way to name level depending on the number encountered. If the 7th level party with a greenhorn fought a band of bugbears the newbie could still contribute but it would be very dangerous for him. In a 4E party he would probably die because he would need to hit an AC designed to be challenging for 7th level characters.

4E was not designed for such level disparity. When entities in a game world cannot meaningfully interact with one another outside of a given level range I have problems. Others may not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Typo/terminology failure on my part there, blame the flu .

OK. But I still agree, so long as the original quote stands (error though you may think it).

That post is for a game thats balanced at the design stage. If you are balancing at the play stage *and are concerned about play balance* (theres no reason you'd have to be, and if you aren't thats fine) then you have to worry about relative power levels, tailored challenges and so on.

So long as you are running an AP-type game, I could see where this applies. You need to tailor encounters; tools that help with this, er, are helpful. If you run a sandbox, it does not, as this sort of balancing falls into the hands of the player.

As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important. It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".


RC

 

[Gimby]

Yes the group will be less powerful as a whole. That is a given in any edition.

The 7th level party will presumably know that they have a greenhorn with them and select opportunities that the new member can contribute to.

In 4th edition the numbers balloon up to the point where a 1st level character just doesn't have the bonuses needed to affect creatures of higher level. In practice, monsters and the DC's associated with all challenges keep in step with the party level. There is variance. A typical adventure will feature challenges both below and above party level. A difference of a level or two in the party will be noticed but not catastrophic. A difference of six levels would be.

In a 1E game a typical unaltered monster has a much longer "shelf life". An umodified bugbear can be a viable threat from 1st all the way to name level depending on the number encountered. If the 7th level party with a greenhorn fought a band of bugbears the newbie could still contribute but it would be very dangerous for him. In a 4E party he would probably die because he would need to hit an AC designed to be challenging for 7th level characters.

4E was not designed for such level disparity. When entities in a game world cannot meaningfully interact with one another outside of a given level range I have problems. Others may not.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming some basic magic gear.

A typical 4e fighter will have 29 hit points at first level and 65 at seventh. His attack bonus will be +8 at first level and +12 or 13 at seventh.

A comparable 1e fighter will have on average 8 hit points at first level and 53 at seventh. His adjusted THAC0 will be 18 at first level and 11-12 at seventh

I'm not seeing that the 1e fighter is going to be better off in the 7th level party than the 4e one is.

 

[Scribble]

As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important. It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".


RC

Still think the proper way to say that is "finding the right WAY to balance your game is important." There might be multiple ways to skin a cat, but you're still skinning a cat. mmmm skinned cat.

 

[the Jester]

A typical 4e fighter will have 29 hit points at first level and 65 at seventh. His attack bonus will be +8 at first level and +12 or 13 at seventh.

A comparable 1e fighter will have on average 8 hit points at first level and 53 at seventh. His adjusted THAC0 will be 18 at first level and 11-12 at seventh

I'm not seeing that the 1e fighter is going to be better off in the 7th level party than the 4e one is.

The difference is, the average 4e monster that the party fights is almost unhittable by the 1st level fighter, and he will consistently take enough damage to take him out in a shot or three.

The 1e guy is going up against tougher monsters, but their damage is usually something like 1d6 or 1d8, and they prolly have about AC 5 or 3- tough, but not unhittable.

 

[Gimby]

OK. But I still agree, so long as the original quote stands (error though you may think it).

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree then.

So long as you are running an AP-type game, I could see where this applies. You need to tailor encounters; tools that help with this, er, are helpful. If you run a sandbox, it does not, as this sort of balancing falls into the hands of the player.

As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important. It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".

I agree, there are different sorts of balance and you need to find the one thats right for you/your group, but relying on the skill and mutual understanding of the players can be hazardous at best, particularly if you are introducing new players.

If you have a great DM and great players then great! Everyone can get on the same page and induct newbies. You probably don't have any problems because you are an experienced and skilled DM. For others, getting players to enact balance at the table is more difficult, particularly if you can make an incredibly weak/strong character by accident. If the DM is then forced to spend their time attempting to correct for this rather than world build/whatever then this can be a problem.