Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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?

Do you have a page reference for this continued tripe? There are many ways in 4E to succeed in consideration of your plan. A good plan can earn you a circumstance bonus of +2 to +4 to your roll(s). A great plan can earn you automatic successes in the context of a skill challenge. An extraordinary plan can earn you total success by DM Fiat just as it has in all previous editions.

 

[howandwhy99]

I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.

It presupposes a heavily antagonistic playstyle where players can't trust DMs to make good decisions and ensure the game remains enjoyable for all.

It is almost a case of using (inventing?) terminology to rule out the possibility of DMs using their narrative control to support players/characters/smart ideas/whatever.

Taken to its logical extreme, you would replace a DM with a computer, and let it run all the numbers because it is frankly unable to effectively make narrative decisions that are worth anything.

So rather than allow the discussion to end up being framed as 'mother may I' on one side and 'just play a CRPG' on the other, can we avoid using loaded terms.

Thanks

I'm unsure on whether or not to take this as a moderator warning, but I can answer with my own concerns as a fellow poster. It is a good call for peace, but I disagree with the assumptions.

I don't use narrative control in my games. That is a loaded term IMO in regards to RPGs. The known rules for all players includes the referee not being allowed to cheat, meaning he or she does not improvise at the table. DM fiat is considered improvisation in my book and not what I desire when I run or play in a game. Rather a referee creates a hidden ruleset ahead of time, the script from which they follow, but once the game begins they cannot deviate from it.

"Mother may I" is actually a game in its' own right, but by my understanding it is now a derogatory Forge term meant to label all pre-storygame RPGs as "dysfunctional". It includes all pre-4E D&D as well as Pathfinder in its' scope. Of course I also disagree with their definition and and it may be wiser not to include this term either in civil conversation.

There is no possible means for me to play my game as a computer game, but neither is it a game of improvisation by all involved. It is not antagonistic between players, but does in fact require a large degree of trust by the players. If you are using "narrative control" to refer to enforcing the rules of any game rather than improvisation, then that control is exclusive to the referee who is the only one who definitively knows them.

 

[Ariosto]

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

YOU brought up the alleged superiority of 4e!

 

[billd91]

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?

No.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

It's edition bashing because, unlike you, Ariosto did not state "if there is no fiat, then X." Instead he stated a fallacy attributed to a particular edition.

If you want an admission that DM Fiat still exists. Yes it does. But there are more rules in place now than at the beginning of the game to help the DM adjudicate common occurances without mainly having to rely on DM Fiat.

 

[Ariosto]

An extraordinary plan can earn you total success by DM Fiat just as it has in all previous editions.

Oh, dear. "The game remains the same." But it's a new, improved Fiat, isn't it? Bigger tail fins, more chrome?

 

[Ariosto]

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.

Unless one is "edition bashing" AD&D, apparently. Then, logic does not apply.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged. Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea.

Well that explains all the blogging, web surfing, and tweeting going on at so many games today. It must be incredibly boring playing a game where a written set of statistics is all that get challenged while the bored drone of a player waits to roll the dice.

Last I checked, I was neither an elf nor a holy priest of Pelor. I guess I'm not playing myself then.

In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units.

Once again it would seem silly to try and get those little minis to respond to a challenge of any sort.

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.

Taking into account not only the plan but also any countermeasures the PCs are unaware of and also the resources that the characters have at thier disposal.

How can you forget about the characters?

Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal.

I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes.

If by "meaningful contribution" you really mean the ability to toss a die without needing to think, then I disagree.

 

[Rel]

Don't make me come in here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's edition bashing because, unlike you, Ariosto did not state "if there is no fiat, then X."

I believe that this was intended to be implied. I.e., "If what is said in what I am quoting is true, then this is the logical result". The InterWeb makes it hard to give other posters the benefit of the doubt, I know. Especially when one feels that one is not being given the same benefit. As I've said before, after 10 minutes in a pub (or other social setting for the non-drinkers), most of these things would sort themselves out.

If you want an admission that DM Fiat still exists. Yes it does. But there are more rules in place now than at the beginning of the game to help the DM adjudicate common occurances without mainly having to rely on DM Fiat.

I am not at all certain that this is a good thing.

I will certainly agree that it helps a mediocre GM be a better GM, but I think it has a tendency to drag down good GMs as well. YMMV on this; it is my opinion.

At the back of the 1e DMG, Gary Gygax admonished the DM to consider what is best for the game first, best for an individual campaign second, and best for any given player(s) third. As time has gone on, I am more and more of the mind that Gygax knew what he was talking about.

More rules over rulings may be good for individual players, or individual campaigns (those with mediocre or poor GMs), but I don't think that it is what is best for the game.

Again, this is heavy YMMV and IMHO country I am walking in here!


RC