Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garthanos]

Why do you assume the attributes of the character are not considered in the resolution of things unless they are prepackaged into the results of predictable dice fests?

I normally argue dice are not needed for anything... did I say dice I say mechanics...for instance experience points... do I get experience points by any other way than rolling those dice and killing things and taking there stuff? Can I earn followers any other way than gaining the levels associated with those experience points or do you house rule because that wasnt the idea of the game?

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it. Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.

I am afraid it does. That is what has routinely been meant by "DM fiat": a ruling by the DM, exercising the judgment necessary to distinguish "merits" from "flaws".

 

[Gimby]

I am afraid it does. That is what has routinely been meant by "DM fiat": a ruling by the DM, exercising the judgment necessary to distinguish "merits" from "flaws".

Possibly (probably) I'm misunderstanding what you are meaning by DM fiat then.

If you have a resolution mechanic already in place, (so in 4e this would be combat, skill challenges or application of page 42, for example) then you just use that. My perception of fiat is more "This fails" or "That succeeds" based on the DM's understanding of the plan.

Where I worry about that application of fiat is that perfect communication of the both the plan (from the players) and the context of the plan (from the DM) is impossible due to issues with communication. What the players may think is an excellent plan may be flawed from the DM perspective because of some factor that would be obvious to the characters but has, for whatever reason, eluded the players.

My feeling is that its a useful, powerful tool and should be used sparingly with that in mind.

 

[Ariosto]

I normally argue dice are not needed for anything... did I say dice I say mechanics...for instance experience points... do I get experience points by any other way than rolling those dice and killing things and taking there stuff? Can I earn followers any other way than gaining the levels associated with those experience points or do you house rule because that wasnt the idea of the game?

Garthanos, you are obviously talking about a different game, with a different idea.

Yes, you can earn followers by any means that a person can earn followers. You can recruit henchmen, and hire hirelings, regardless of your level.

In addition, you may acquire followers when your character is of a certain level and establishes a stronghold. Your DM has guidance on such matters in the Dungeon Masters Guide, as well as advice on adjudicating experience point awards. The essential advice is:

You must weigh the level of challenge -- be it thinking or fighting -- versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it. ... Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with the level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You missed the point... Players wanting to vicariously experience the abilities of characters with abilities that do not correspond to there own.... are un supported by DM fiat based on player ability.

OK, I confess:

To impress an NPC the player has to give a performance on par with a Broadway actor.

To hit an orc in combat requires a demonstration of proper sword technique.

Magic is kept in check by forcing the player to cast any spell before his character can.

OK I lied.

 

[Garthanos]

OK, I confess:

If DM logic and common sense is the dominant method for resolving something you will get people who play no impressing unless you impress me... and I think your battle plan sucks so you are screwed. Isnt that what all this "superior" player talk is about?

 

[Ariosto]

If you have a resolution mechanic already in place, (so in 4e this would be combat, skill challenges or application of page 42, for example) then you just use that. My perception of fiat is more "This fails" or "That succeeds" based on the DM's understanding of the plan.

Yes; the 4e method screws you without consideration of your plan.

The 4e method also leaves the number-crunching that keeps things predictable in whose hands? CL's? EN's?

 

[Gimby]

Yes; the 4e method screws you without consideration of your plan.

The 4e method also leaves the number-crunching that keeps things predictable in whose hands? CL's? EN's?

See, we were having a productive discussion up till this point. Since it's back to the edition bashing I'm out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, we were having a productive discussion up till this point. Since it's back to the edition bashing I'm out.

How is that edition bashing? Really? AFAICT, it does nothing more than point out the problem with the line of reasoning being responded to.

I.e., doesn't Page 42 require the DM to determine the feasibility of a plan before determining how to apply the mechanics given? If so, then DM Fiat is an important factor in those mechanics. If not, then Ariosto would be correct, and the in-game decisions aren't actually important at all. One cannot have it both ways.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Where I worry about that application of fiat is that perfect communication of the both the plan (from the players) and the context of the plan (from the DM) is impossible due to issues with communication. What the players may think is an excellent plan may be flawed from the DM perspective because of some factor that would be obvious to the characters but has, for whatever reason, eluded the players.

Perfection communication is impossible? I don't think any such impossible 'perfection' is necessary. In practice, I find that adequate communication is the norm.

I certainly don't see how your claimed superior design is any improvement.