Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Hussar]

That wasn't necessarily the presumption. Rather, the assumption was that the GM would have a group of players that didn't always all play together all of the time.

Thus, if Character X is on quest Y with Characters A, B, and C, and at the time the players of Characters D and E want to go with Character X's player to Dungeon J, then that player would naturally use a different character.


RC

But, this isn't what's being talked about here though. Several posters have referred to the idea that the game will be balanced because the player will be changing characters constantly. I suppose that could be because he's playing with another bunch once in a while, but the gist of people's posts has been that it is character death which maintains balance. Thus the whole sidebar on drawing cards.

But, even so, that still doesn't maintain balance in a given campaign. Multiple points of imbalance do not make for balance.

And, honestly, to me, it comes back to my basic question:

How can a system be considered designed for balance when using that system will give me unbalanced results AND the game designers recognize this fact AND the game designers do not give any guidelines on what actually constitutes a balanced game?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced. How did they achieve this balance? IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.

RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

'Designed for game balance?' Yes, without a doubt. It even tells you so, in plain speak (these quotes are from the AD&D 1e PHB):

'Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance.'

'The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game.'

(emphasis mine)

And that's without even looking at the DMG.

(sorry if I've missed these quotes being brought up already - it's a loooong thread! )

 

[Fifth Element]

What your posts make clear is that you Just Don't Get It(TM). Every time you repeat the exact same fallacy because you simply refuse to understand that your premises are false you make it clear that you are Never Going To Get It(TM).

What fallacy? You've demonstrated that you don't understand my point, by arguing that a character's ability score rolls are not affected by a previous character's ability score rolls. Which is true, but is also not what I was talking about.

You don't think the game starts until after characters are rolled up.

Nope. I'm arguing that the random generation of ability scores can produce an imbalanced result.

 

[Fifth Element]

Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced. How did they achieve this balance? IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.

I have no trouble believing this to be true, despite never having experienced it myself.

But the question being discussed is whether the AD&D system is itself balanced. If it relies on player interaction to remain balanced, then the system itself is not balanced.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But the question being discussed is whether the AD&D system is itself balanced.

At times, yes. However, tHe question that was asked is this: 'Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?'

A necessary distinction, I believe.

 

[Fifth Element]

At times, yes. However, tHe question that was asked is this: 'Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?'

A necessary distinction, I believe.

A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar,

Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced. How did they achieve this balance? IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.

RC

Actually, no. That you, as the DM, can balance the system is irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't change things in the slightest. A system can be designed for balance and the DM can screw it up and unbalance it. Does that mean the system is no longer designed for balance? Of course not. It means the DM did something to unbalance the system.

Conversely, a system can be designed without balance as a consideration, yet the DM can achieve balance, probably through experience and trial and error.

Are there elements of balance in the AD&D system? Sure. I won't deny that. But, was it designed for balance? IMO, no it wasn't. I cannot see how a system can be designed for balance when it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) KNOW it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) WARN the players that it will give unbalanced results and cannot provide examples of balanced results.

For some reason, no one seems to want to touch this. The systems TELLS you that it will give you unbalanced results. How can you consider the system to be designed for balance?

That you can achieve balance is irrelevant.

--------------

A later thought occurs. I would like to say that I had a blast playing 1e D&D. The implication of RC's post is that I'm some huge hater of 1e and all things AD&D. That is totally not true. I liked 1e and I liked 2e. Between the two of them I certainly played enough hours of them, both behind the screen and in front. So, I would certainly include myself in the group that enjoyed 1e D&D. However, that does not blind me to looking at what I see as facts. I've been very, very careful throughout this to not voice any value judgement, good or bad, on the balance in 1e. What I happen to think of the balance is not germane to this discussion.

To me, the facts speak for themselves. Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder. The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced. Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results. And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.

 

[Aus_Snow]

A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.

That's reasonable enough, most likely. For all I know, the question itself has been well and truly answered, some time ago. I'm not reading this whole damn thing to find out, that's for sure.

So yeah, never mind. And I'll throw your 'more interesting question' to the too hard basket. Except maybe to say, somewhat. Or, that there is game balance to be found in AD&D 1e, and there is game imbalance to be found in AD&D 1e.

To address the OP directly ('Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?

I'm not asking if it was/is balanced, just if it was intended to be balanced.') - well, the answer is clearly and evidently, 'yes'. But not to the nth degree. That is, game balance (in the commonly used modern RPG sense) wasn't the primary concern, IMO. But sure, it was there. Undeniably.

And beyond that, I guess I don't quite get all the angst. Maybe I don't even want to. . .

 

[billd91]

To me, the facts speak for themselves. Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder. The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced. Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results. And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.

Depends entirely on what you consider balanced. But ultimately, your standards are a fool's errand at best. Game mechanics alone cannot achieve "balance" in actual play. A 4e game could be unbalanced if, for example, one player manages to browbeat or manipulate the rest into letting him have all the decent magic items.
The two games offer different tools toward achieving balance because they're looking at fundamentally different emphases on the whole idea of mechanical balance.