Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Ariosto]

Ahh but that is not me now is it?

Then who? If you end up referring to yourself in the third person, that's a bit odd; having a conversation with yourself in the second is probably not a good sign! Your "character" has no mind, no personality, no real existence at all. It is no more than a persona, like the masks that actors wore in the ancient Greek theater.

But D&D is not really theater, or puppetry, or a novel. It's not just a war-game, either -- certainly not in the sense of an algorithmic model that chugs away on automation and spits out a report!

If one's only purpose is to "put on a show" that has no real effect on the game, then how really is it a game? If there is simultaneously something separate that is a game, then how is that different from performing one's "Hoppy the Hobbit" routine while playing Canasta or Command and Colors?

Integration is key. D&D brought forward a game form in which playing a role was how one played the game!

Again, it's fine and dandy if you happen to like "acting the part" to an appropriate degree. Of course, Hoppy the Hobbit is not exactly the same as you! But don't put down the guy who imagines "himself, as he likes to think he might be" in Hoppy's place. There in fact is nobody else to motivate that imaginary frame, to see through those eyes and feel the chills that might be but dungeon drafts or ... something ominous. There is no other will to make Hoppy's choices, no other heart to feel his feelings.

Hoppy the Hobbit cannot play a game. A mere collection of numbers cannot be challenged. That takes a real person.

 

[Ariosto]

I do not think your point would have been diminished if you had left it out.

I think it emphasizes the point if one appreciates how mutable the designers openly consider even those offerings.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Keeping in mind the ideals of "game first, campaign second, player third" as mentioned elsewhere, making rulings up on the fly when there's no otherwise-functional guideline for a given situation is not only desireable, but essential. And situations where there is no written guideline come up with alarming frequency in all editions (though I'll confess to guessing this is the case with 4e, having not played it); if for no other reason that nobody can ever sort out how, for example, every spell or effect is going to interact with every other spell, effect, or combination thereof in every possible condition. Is there a written rule, for example, in *any* edition that defines what happens if I try to cast a spell while in free fall?

Through darkness?

While tumbling slowly end over end?

Of course not, and that sort of thing is where DM fiat, or DM improvisation, comes in real handy-like. But by your definition, if a DM hasn't already thought of this specific situation and come up with a pre-ordained ruling to cover it, she is not allowed to come up with something on the fly...and then what?

"Mother may I" is actually a game in its' own right, but by my understanding it is now a derogatory Forge term...

You know, the more I hear of this "Forge" thing and its definitions, the less I like it. The whole thing seems to be about creating antagonism, and then giving weapons (via loaded definitions) for antagonists to fight with.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

Garthanos, I hope you can see that it need not come down to an "either/or" choice. If I had to choose one or the other, though, then I would choose the very approach that you repeatedly put down -- in order to avoid the very mechanization and dissociation you advocate. (That's really a bizarre development to my mind, as the Thespians Over All crowd used to have such disdain for "roll" playing.)

There was amateur theater long before D&D! The one simply does not deliver what I desire from the other.

 

[Lanefan]

1e sets up a very pyramidal structure with the Dm at the top and the players at the bottom. This is certainly one way to structure things, but hardly the only way. And, it depends on how long you consider to be a "short life". I consider an 18-24 month campaign to be pretty successful.

Although I do stand in awe of those who manage to have multi-year campaigns. I would not base my game on the assumption that we'll all be playing together ten years from now.

I don't. I base my assumptions on that I'll still be running the campaign ten years from now, and that while some of the players may be the same as those who start out, some or all of them may not.

To me, the reality is that groups change membership pretty often. Every couple of years for the most part. I think it shows Gygax's own assumptions that groups would be much longer lived that leads him to put the game first. If your group is going to game together for ten years, then you better get that game nailed down for that group.

OTOH, if your group will only survive about two or three years, then the game better work out of the box.

I suspect Gygax's assumptions were similar to my own: that the campaign will be fluid enough and robust enough to handle some player turnover during its lifespan, and will go on long enough that said turnover is pretty much inevitable.

My last long campaign went almost 12 years and had a total of 21 players involved at some point or other. One of those players went from start to finish. Several others - maybe 10 - were in for 5 or more years (some of whom I'd never even met when the campaign started!). The rest were in for varying lengths of time ranging from a few sessions to a few years.

And, coming back to topic, this does affect the balance of the game. Long-term players are likelier (though not guaranteed) to have long-term characters, who have had much more opportunity to amass wealth etc. than a rookie. And this is one balance issue I have yet to find a good means of addressing, other than by the most undesireable method of giving new characters loads of wealth coming in.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

You know, the more I hear of this "Forge" thing and its definitions, the less I like it.

Some are just confusing, as they are at odds with more widely accepted usage.

Then there's "Vanilla". What might one think to call the Not-Vanilla? Take a guess.

Take at least 30 more guesses.

[SBLOCK]"Pervy"[/SBLOCK]

 

[Garthanos]

Then who?

Why Hoppy the hobbit ofcourse....
If I pay attention to our differences I will make decisions... different than I would make them for me.. because he is not a modern american technophile with a wife and 2 kids and liberal democratic political bent and sceptical agnostic religious tendencies... If I fail and do not pay attention he will just act like me in a different place

Your "character" has no mind, no personality, no real existence at all.

except what I give it and that can be very elaborate, and creative and become even moreso when it develops over the course of our experiences in the game. If I choose in a discussion to refer to hoppy as third person it is to help me, remember the difference in our backgrounds and pov nothing more... dont paranoia over it.

Again, it's fine and dandy if you happen to like "acting the part" to an appropriate degree.

Presentation is independent of adjusting ones thinking based on the character
Elaborate descriptions are my personal preferred presentation layer and I havent had enough thespianites in my games, (unless you count my sons budding inclinations) to be used to it myself.

Of course, Hoppy the Hobbit is not exactly the same as you!
But don't put down the guy who imagines "himself, as he likes to think he might be" in Hoppy's place. .

Actually I am bolstering up the person who does more than that... as it seems a real skill (and I admit sometimes I do indeed just want to me in the game -- as actively invoking that otherness is harder work).

 

[Garthanos]

Garthanos, I hope you can see that it need not come down to an "either/or" choice. If I had to choose one or the other, though, then I would choose the very approach that you repeatedly put down -- in order to avoid the very mechanization and dissociation you advocate. (That's really a bizarre development to my mind, as the Thespians Over All crowd used to have such disdain for "roll" playing.)

Sorry probably some miscommunication has occurred I was channelling a bit of split personality a part of me really enjoys mechanics for there simulation elements independent of impact on actual play and I was pointing out that our game here is providing mechanics like hit points, armor classes weapons tables and etc that are no more necessary for physical conflict than "somebody" might want or envision for other forms of interaction, Therefore the game creates combat heavy expectations through its design. Other games with lighter hands do indeed govern other forms of conflict mechanically in ways that are not horribly objectionable there is a thread about it somewhere ... but for me voluntary buy in mechanics are the most actually appealing .... Aspects/fate points... from Fate for instance act as a sort of bribe/award system the dm can use to reward players when they allow there characters stronger personality features to inconvenience the character.

 

[Njall]

It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching". His words.

Well, his point was that he'd like a system that doesn't require to be constantly patched by the DM.
Since Errata is usually issued by WotC rather than DM's, I don't really see how this would be the case

 

[Umbran]

Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.

Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)

Welcome to the "Don't start the edition warring" warning.

You could have just said, "Yeah, I know how you feel - me too." Instead, in going overboard, what you've done is release yet more negativity into EN World. We don't appreciate this sort of thing anymore.

Listen, folks are allowed to have opinions on games. But there comes a point where all you're doing is showing off how creatively or vehemently you can take a mallet to something. This doesn't actually help anyone do anything. Please don't do it. Thank you.