Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Raven Crowking]

I would have to disagree about the percentage of bad DM but only because you had more experienced good DM at the start as a percentage of the DM's.

As I said, I started as DM without a background in rpgs or wargames.

AFAICT, I was the first DM in my area, and I was directly responsible (I later learned, through bringing the Holmes book to school) for the second. About 1/3 of my initial D&D experiences (2 out of the first 6, myself not included) were with bad DMs, and I can say without a doubt that the bad ones then were also the worst I ever experienced.

In both cases, wanting to direct the player characters, and decide how encounters "should" go was the cardinal sin, and 3e does little, if anything, to prevent this!

Over the years, though, I have met many more good DMs than bad.

I would say that the CR system was the Monster level system improved by adding more weight to the non hd strengths and weakness of a monster. 4e exp system is similar but more accurate simple do the closer ties to all of the monsters abilities.

The 1e Monster Level system gives more weight to the non-HD strengths of monsters AFAICT. The exact formula is given in the 1e DMG, and one can see that special abilities can quickly outweigh hit dice in terms of XP value (and, therefore, Monster Level).

The CR system reverses the process somewhat. In 1e, monster hit dice + monster abilities = XP Value, which in turn determines Monster Level. In 3e, monster hit dice + monster abilities are used (in some undisclosed method) to determine CR, and CR in turn determines a far less granular XP value.

While the CR system is far more granular than Monster Level overall, the fact is that in 1e, much higher granularity in the XP Value of a monster can allow the experienced DM to get a better idea of how big a threat a monster is than the CR system allows for.

Thus, where 1e gives you Monster Levels 1 to 10, 3e gives you CR 1/6 to 20+, greatly increasing the granularity. However, underlying ML 1-10 is an XP system running from under 5 to over 10,000, that offers by far the most granularity any system ever has for determining the relative challenge a monster represents.

Should not the statement about fines be:

It is easlier to control and judge when X+10 is now equal to the old X+1 so you have more and finer steps to tweak things?

No, because we are talking about the quanta of change.

In 3e at least, the power curve doesn't actually have a high level of granularity. The step between one level and the next (or one CR and the next) is far greater than that in TSR-D&D.

When increase in power occurs gradually, it is possible to vary the number and levels of characters without having to rewrite challenges to compensate. Which is why you see so many TSR modules say "For 4-6 characters between levels X and Y".

Likewise, a DM's work in 1e is usable for longer than it is in 3e. Say that the DM has four characters in his game, each of which is 3rd level. He then creates three potential adventures, and allows them to choose which to follow up on.

In 1e, both because levelling is slower, and because the power curve is shallower, it is possible to use all of this work with the same characters without any redesign whatsoever. Moreover, it is possible to do so without the last area being too easy or the first area being too hard.

Conversely, in 3e, adventures need a scaling sidebar in case there are relatively minor variances in character levels or numbers.

Thus, when the power curve uses a granularity of X+1, X+2, X+3, you have less varience than when the power curve is X+10, X+20, X+30, X+50, etc. It is easier for first level 1e characters to handle a ML 2 monster than it is for 1st level 3e characters to handle a CR 2 monster, even though CR 2 includes creatures that are ML 1 in the 1e system. The margin of error (i.e., where the DM can misjudge difficulty without sinking the boat) in 1e is far, far greater than it is in 3e.

WotC recognized this, and explicitly took steps to deal with it in 4e. "Flattening the power curve" was a stated design goal. Whether they were successful or not is, of course, another topic.



RC

 

[Garmorn]

As I said, I started as DM without a background in rpgs or wargames.
[\quote] missed that sorry.

AFAICT, I was the first DM in my area, and I was directly responsible (I later learned, through bringing the Holmes book to school) for the second. About 1/3 of my initial D&D experiences (2 out of the first 6, myself not included) were with bad DMs, and I can say without a doubt that the bad ones then were also the worst I ever experienced.

In both cases, wanting to direct the player characters, and decide how encounters "should" go was the cardinal sin, and 3e does little, if anything, to prevent this!
[\quote]

Mine was about 2/3 bad to good but that ratio went down as I met more experienced DM's.

Over the years, though, I have met many more good DMs than bad.[\quote]

Mine is still about 50/50 overall. Might be one reason I am far more skeptical about DM's being good about balance. One blazing example: House rule Spellcasters could use spell points (You total level of spells lvl castalbe per day) to cast any spell from a wand, rod or staff that they carried. (No back failure chance). Each casting cost one spell point regardless of spell level if cast from an item.

The 1e Monster Level system gives more weight to the non-HD strengths of monsters AFAICT. The exact formula is given in the 1e DMG, and one can see that special abilities can quickly outweigh hit dice in terms of XP value (and, therefore, Monster Level).

The CR system reverses the process somewhat. In 1e, monster hit dice + monster abilities = XP Value, which in turn determines Monster Level. In 3e, monster hit dice + monster abilities are used (in some undisclosed method) to determine CR, and CR in turn determines a far less granular XP value.[\quote]

Miss remembered.

No, because we are talking about the quanta of change.

In 3e at least, the power curve doesn't actually have a high level of granularity. The step between one level and the next (or one CR and the next) is far greater than that in TSR-D&D.

When increase in power occurs gradually, it is possible to vary the number and levels of characters without having to rewrite challenges to compensate. Which is why you see so many TSR modules say "For 4-6 characters between levels X and Y".

Likewise, a DM's work in 1e is usable for longer than it is in 3e. Say that the DM has four characters in his game, each of which is 3rd level. He then creates three potential adventures, and allows them to choose which to follow up on.

In 1e, both because levelling is slower, and because the power curve is shallower, it is possible to use all of this work with the same characters without any redesign whatsoever. Moreover, it is possible to do so without the last area being too easy or the first area being too hard.

Conversely, in 3e, adventures need a scaling sidebar in case there are relatively minor variances in character levels or numbers.

Thus, when the power curve uses a granularity of X+1, X+2, X+3, you have less varience than when the power curve is X+10, X+20, X+30, X+50, etc. It is easier for first level 1e characters to handle a ML 2 monster than it is for 1st level 3e characters to handle a CR 2 monster, even though CR 2 includes creatures that are ML 1 in the 1e system. The margin of error (i.e., where the DM can misjudge difficulty without sinking the boat) in 1e is far, far greater than it is in 3e.

WotC recognized this, and explicitly took steps to deal with it in 4e. "Flattening the power curve" was a stated design goal. Whether they were successful or not is, of course, another topic.

RC[\quote]

Right. What I meant is that in AD&D monster A is level X+2 and is twice thice as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster. In 3.x monster A is level X+2 and is 10 times as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.

As you say it make using AD&D monsters easlier to work with as a DM designing encounters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Right. What I meant is that in AD&D monster A is level X+2 and is twice thice as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster. In 3.x monster A is level X+2 and is 10 times as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.

As you say it make using AD&D monsters easlier to work with as a DM designing encounters.

Then we agree.

I like tools. I think that any tool the DM is given is worthwhile, so long as it remains a viable tool. The way that tools are apporached within the framework of a game, though, can alter how they are perceived and used.

The Wealth-per-Level guidelines, for instance, in 3e were intended to be exactly this, but (unfortunately) the power curve made the game act wonky (or so I have heard it said) for some folks when they differed from this guideline. Coupled with the "taking the DM out of the equation" philosophy of 3e (which Monte Cook is on record as saying was taken too far, and even farther in 3.5), one began to hear (on the InterWeb, at least), that the players were "owed" a certain amount of wealth by level.

I know that, in my case, allotting treasure is a lot more fun in a game without expected wealth by level. I understand why some people lose interest in figuring out what is there to find in recent editions of the game. There is little thrill of discovery when discovery is certain. There is little joy in choosing treasure that will just be converted into the best bonus ASAP (because of a philosophy that says PCs should be able to customize their equipment). There is little fun in designing treasures when doing so is nothing more than accounting.

On the surface, Wealth by Level guidelines are a useful tool. The way they are approached, though, can be more damaging than beneficial. This is similar to by-the-book 3e monster templates vs. the far easier, equally rewarding quick-n-dirty methods of modifying monsters that have existed since 1e at least.

Somewhere between the approach of 1e and 3e, there is probably a golden mean, but I don't think anyone has found it yet!



RC

 

[AllisterH]

1. Stats and balance.

Again, it should be pointed out.


RIGHT ON the beginning of th 1e PHB, there is an EXPLICIT mention by Gygax that if you're character doesn't have at LEAST 2 starting stats above 15 (one in your prime req), the character is looking at VERY long ends of survival.

Honestly. to me anyway, that passage on page 8 explicitly means you were NOT supposed to play with non-superhero stats.

2. Wealth level a.k.a 2e _IS_ AD&D.

People seem to forget that 2e _IS_ AD&D and 2e does have the fighter companion chart which lists magic items for a high level fighter. The assumption I always worked under was that at a MINIMUM, a character should be at least equal in gear to that fighter NPC companion.

 

[Garmorn]

Then we agree.

I like tools. I think that any tool the DM is given is worthwhile, so long as it remains a viable tool. The way that tools are apporached within the framework of a game, though, can alter how they are perceived and used.

The Wealth-per-Level guidelines, for instance, in 3e were intended to be exactly this, but (unfortunately) the power curve made the game act wonky (or so I have heard it said) for some folks when they differed from this guideline. Coupled with the "taking the DM out of the equation" philosophy of 3e (which Monte Cook is on record as saying was taken too far, and even farther in 3.5), one began to hear (on the InterWeb, at least), that the players were "owed" a certain amount of wealth by level.

I know that, in my case, allotting treasure is a lot more fun in a game without expected wealth by level. I understand why some people lose interest in figuring out what is there to find in recent editions of the game. There is little thrill of discovery when discovery is certain. There is little joy in choosing treasure that will just be converted into the best bonus ASAP (because of a philosophy that says PCs should be able to customize their equipment). There is little fun in designing treasures when doing so is nothing more than accounting.

On the surface, Wealth by Level guidelines are a useful tool. The way they are approached, though, can be more damaging than beneficial. This is similar to by-the-book 3e monster templates vs. the far easier, equally rewarding quick-n-dirty methods of modifying monsters that have existed since 1e at least.

Somewhere between the approach of 1e and 3e, there is probably a golden mean, but I don't think anyone has found it yet!



RC

I have been trying your approach of hidden and other wise protected treasure with 4e packets. It is simple and quick. I have pre chosen/random rolled all of the wealth for level. To prevent the (must find all syndrome), I am using an alternate treasure approach. There will be a few extra magic items and sell back will be higher. The standard method is great for a new/inexperienced group/DM. This method gives me more lead way and gives the 1e feel with out the large swings in wealth that 1e system could generate.

I love tools that: a) speeds up prep, b) reduces guesses work, c) is simple to understand, and d) gave consistent results. 1e unfortunately did not have any that match all four requirements. Most did not even match 2 of the requirements for lots of DMs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Garmon,

I like the cut of your jib. I hope the changes to treasure work for your group, and would be interested to hear how things go.


RC

 

[howandwhy99]

Emphasis mine.

How does being a simulation game or not relate to balance between classes?

I've seen the use of "Gamist", "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" as part of the GNS theory of RPG design - I might not agree with all implications of the theory, but the terms seem to have little relation to what you're using them for.

Could you explain what you mean by "simulation game"?

Starting last and working upwards. Simulation games are perhaps the most common form of game. Computer simulations, wargame miniatures simulations, etc. That is what I mean by simulation game, not GNS or Big Model Theory. Simulation games are not a type of RPG, they cannot be. Computer RPGs are often taken as RPGs because of their similarity in design to some published classic RPG designs. They are not RPGs. A person cannot roleplay with a computer. Both storygame theories and Mr. Gygax agreed on the last point.

AD&D is not balanced by class as it is not a competitive game between the players, but a game every individual plays alone with the option for each to work with other players at the table. This is how cooperation games work. Class balance would not matter in AD&D anyways as everything would become "unbalanced" between players once one achieved a different class level than the others.

It is not balanced at all as a simulation game or player vs. player competition game. It is balanced as a cooperative game, but that is only one way to run D&D. As D&D is in the category of a pattern finding games cooperative design simply works better for most groups. See here for a basic explanation about this category of games. The author of that site calls player groups: cooperative learning groups, though it does not specifically refer to RPGs. I can't find anywhere on the internet that properly recognizes RPGs as pattern finding games, but in all my experience and study of the first 30 years of RPG design and of the 90 year history of roleplaying it is clear to me they are.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1. How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
2. What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
3. What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4. How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

1. Cannot be answered; there is no inherent "standard" in 1e.
2. Cannot be answered; what is "average" to one party might be killer to a second and a pushover for a third; all of the same level. (and with Gargoyles in particular, much will depend on how much magic the party's got in its scabbards)
3. At whatever level he or she finds one and is able to keep it.
4. How many, or how powerful? I've seen 7th-level characters who poured all their wealth into one really spectacular item; I've also seen 7ths who collect all the minor magics everyone else doesn't want - they might have 25 items, but only 2 are worth more than 2000 g.p. and most of the rest are but a few hundred each.

Also, in 1e more so than later editions a second variable rears its ugly head: item destruction. One good fireball and subsequent meltdown can ruin your whole bank account! And, for the recond and speaking as one who's been on the wrong end of many a meltdown, that's the way I like it.

So there's no real good answer for that one either.

But, how stats effected characters in other editions or other games is also irrelavent. It could have MASSIVE effects in 3e but it does't matter. The claim on the table is that high stats had little effect on characters, which I've shown to be pretty false.

For example, I would point out that a 1e cleric with a 12 wis has very limited spell casting abilities, to the point where he has no bonus spells and actually has a chance (albeit a small one - 1%) of spell failure every time he casts. A wizard with a 12 Int gets a max of 7 spells per level, and only has a 45% chance of actually learning a new spell.

Low ability scores in AD&D were just as crippling as any other edition.

There's low, and then there's hopeless. A Cleric with Wis. 12 comes under hopeless; and if the 12 is its highest stat it should be scrapped and re-rolled. 3e to its credit actually put that in the book: nothing higher than 13, or total bonus adding to 0 or less, means scrap and start over.

As AllisterH pointed out already, the 1e game sort of assumes you're going to have at least one 15...and that's not a problem.

My personal preference for a character is to have one real high stat to make it rock, one real low stat to make it fun, and the rest can be whatever unless I'm trying for a specific class that has multiple stat requirements e.g. Ranger.

That said, having played both I'll say that starting stats make less difference to a PC's projected career length in 1e than 3e; but as 3e has so many ways to change stats both temporarily and permanently once the game gets going any comparison after the first few levels is kinda pointless.

2. Wealth level a.k.a 2e _IS_ AD&D.

People seem to forget that 2e _IS_ AD&D and 2e does have the fighter companion chart which lists magic items for a high level fighter. The assumption I always worked under was that at a MINIMUM, a character should be at least equal in gear to that fighter NPC companion.

That's a guideline for Fighters, but what about all the other classes?

I never played 2e; was the magic acquisition rate expected to be about the same as 1e?

Lan-"I never met a +2 sword I didn't like"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is notably less well balanced than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.

Agreed. But 3E operates just like 1E in this regard. It assumes a baseline in order to give you some additional tools that operate along that baseline; but it's trivial to abandon the baseline.

(This is notably no true in 4E, however, was specifically designed to formalize the fetishization of balance that consumed certain segments of 3E fandom.)

AD&D 1e has legs. It is still an ongoing gaming concern. Arguably, it still has more players today than any other version of the game.

I assume this is a definition of "arguably" which includes "almost certainly not true"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I assume this is a definition of "arguably" which includes "almost certainly not true"?

Not sure about that.

I haven't run the numbers myself, but I am told that a combination of the TSR sales data, the WotC sales data, and the WotC pre-3e survey suggested that it may well be true that 1e has more adherents than 2, 3, or 4.

Hence "arguably". As I said, I haven't run the numbers, or even been presented with the full argument, so it is quite possibly a poor argument. Unless you have access to information I do not have, though, the reverse is equally potentially true.


RC