Game Balance - A Study in Imperfection (forked)

[FireLance]

What do these shifting paradigms mean to me?

1. Balance shifted from the player to the character
2. Balance shifted from a seat at the table for a player to characters becoming statistically balanced (note the total lack of random elements in character creation in later editions). Additionally, because character turn over becomes less common, it becomes more important to make sure everyone is playing with the same numbers.
3. Different levels among the PCs is against the social contract of later editions. This reflects the balance between characters instead of players.
4. Overcoming challenging monsters as means of gaining XP has shifted the focus of the game to combat. Being clever and avoiding a big fight (which often comes from player creativity) is rewarded less and less as editions change (the default assumption being the PCs wade into combat).

I generally agree with the above except for the last point, which I only agree with partly. The focus of the game has indeed shifted to gaining XP through overcoming challenges, but while combat is almost certainly the most common type of challenge, it is not the only one. PCs could earn XP by surviving traps, overcoming skill challenges or accomplishing objectives (quests). A DM could, in theory, run an entire campaign in which the PCs earn XP without defeating a single enemy in combat.

However, I also think that another aspect of the game that has changed is that combat has become less lethal for the character and more enjoyable for the player. In other words, players who engage in combat are less likely to risk a dead chaarcter and are rewarded with an enjoyable experience in addition to XP for their characters. Hence, when given a choice between fighting and overcoming a challenge by noncombat means, some players may choose to fight even if the XP reward for both approaches is the same.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Method I for stat generation in the 1e DMG was 4d6, drop low, arrange to taste. And, from every survey I've seen online, this was very common at most tables; few people playing 1e used 3d6-straight. The stat tables basically stop making sense if you use 3d6 straight because most mechanical differences are far out on the periphery - usually 3-6 and 15-18.

Also, there wasn't really a sense that the "base classes were it." Even before Unearthed Arcana, you had a series of new classes released in Dragon. Many of these were called "NPC-only," but given their XP tables and the like, they were pretty regularly used in play, too, as I understand it.

(It's been a while, but from what I've read recently, 2e moved back to 3d6-straight as the normal means of character generation. But 2e also had a strong "Rath Effect" built into the game, where players were encouraged to run mechanically bland characters.)

-O

Base classes just means no prestige classes and their future kin.

I have a 1st Edition PHB, but I never played it. Looks like I need to fact check my info on it

 

[Doug McCrae]

First Edition

• Death at 0

Death at -10 is the rule in 1e. DMG pg 82.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I generally agree with the above except for the last point, which I only agree with partly. The focus of the game has indeed shifted to gaining XP through overcoming challenges, but while combat is almost certainly the most common type of challenge, it is not the only one. PCs could earn XP by surviving traps, overcoming skill challenges or accomplishing objectives (quests). A DM could, in theory, run an entire campaign in which the PCs earn XP without defeating a single enemy in combat.

True and I think you'd find most DMs awarding XP for overcoming their foes through methods other then strength of arms.

However, I also think that another aspect of the game that has changed is that combat has become less lethal for the character and more enjoyable for the player. In other words, players who engage in combat are less likely to risk a dead chaarcter and are rewarded with an enjoyable experience in addition to XP for their characters. Hence, when given a choice between fighting and overcoming a challenge by noncombat means, some players may choose to fight even if the XP reward for both approaches is the same.

I think this is a good change in general. But that change comes at a cost and it's interesting to discuss that cost. I miss rolling 3d6 for character creation and seeing what you get (and yes, sometimes you get a steaming pile). I miss the opportunity to reroll. I miss random deaths to giant frogs. I miss watching that 1 hp fighter survive countless attacks (how is that possible!).

Luckily, if your group is willing, you can change up editions every so often, finding both the good and the bad of what other editions had to offer the intrepid adventurer.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Death at -10 is the rule in 1e. DMG pg 82.

So I'm all wrong of 1E
Wonder why this changed in 2nd Edition

 

[Dausuul]

Death at -10 is the rule in 1e. DMG pg 82.

It was also a widely-used optional rule in 2E. I don't think I ever played a 2E campaign that didn't follow the -10 rule.

 

[Obryn]

Base classes just means no prestige classes and their future kin.

Except for Bards. They were the first Prestige Class, more or less. Advance as a Fighter, then advance as a Thief, and then become a Druid - but you're really a Bard.

I have a 1st Edition PHB, but I never played it. Looks like I need to fact check my info on it

I don't know if you'll get a sense of the whole environment from the PHB. Dragon is probably a much better source of what was going on in the world of 1e, strange though that may sound. Given that there weren't monthly book releases, it was the main source of new material for AD&D.

-O

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Except for Bards. They were the first Prestige Class, more or less. Advance as a Fighter, then advance as a Thief, and then become a Druid - but you're really a Bard.


I don't know if you'll get a sense of the whole environment from the PHB. Dragon is probably a much better source of what was going on in the world of 1e, strange though that may sound. Given that there weren't monthly book releases, it was the main source of new material for AD&D.

-O

First was well before my time, obviously my perception of what 1E DnD was is really off . I started playing during 2nd Edition.

Dausuul: We only played with the death at -10 house rule as well. It is interesting to note RAW however.

 

[Nifft]

Just to be clear, is this a discussion on balance in D&D or is it a discussion of balance in RPGs in general.

If its the latter, don't forget "Balance? We don't need no STEEENKEEENG Balance!" (games like RIFTS) and "Balance via equal resources" (point-based games like HERO, GURPS or M&M).

I'm going to be most comfortable discussing D&D because that's what I know best, but please feel free to bring up other game systems if they have some interesting novelty worthy of discussion.

Balance by Rarity: A combination of random character generation and race and class ability score minimums ensured that certain classes and races were rarer than others. Paladins were the poster child for this type of balance (minimum 17 Charisma) but you couldn't choose to play an elf or dwarf if certain of your ability scores were too low, either.

This balance by rarity also applied to other aspects of the game, including magic user spells learned and treasure. Part of the reason why certain "game breaking" spells and items did not cause widespread problems was because, by the rules, they would only show up rarely in any particular game.

Ironically, this works pretty well in computer games like Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl. In my experience with table top games, though, this amounts to Balance by Socially Pressuring the DM, which was not a good thing at all.

Balance by Risk: Related to, but not exactly the same as, "Balance by Randomly Screw You".

I think you may be on to something here, if you consider players to be cognizant of the risks they choose by performing actions which may randomly screw them -- like camping is putting yourself at risk for random encounters. Perhaps this is a better name for that category.

When talking about older edition balance, it's important to remember that the "campaigns" conceived of by Gygax et al involved the same players running multiple (potentially many) characters over a substantial period of time. What really matters is balance of player opportunity. If everyone is running multiple characters, a random distribution of character power is mitigated by the fact that everyone has strong characters and weak characters. So (in theory at least), your overall player experience is balanced even if the power distribution of any given session is widely variable.

Absolutely. I was thinking about adding some kind of Meta-Amortized Pwnage category to describe this expectation, but you got there before I could. 1e expected you to play lots of PCs, so who cares if you rolled a bunch of sevens? You'll be rolling stats again soon.

As an aside, in a recent C&C game, all of us independently chose to keep our stats in the order we rolled them, mostly out of nostalgia.

More later, -- N

 

[AllisterH]

Reading some of Old Geezer's stories, Gary's campaign seemed closer to an ARS MAGICA campaign than what we consider a D&D Campaign.

Everyone had multiple characters and thus one day, you might play the backup and the other guy would be "the star" and the next day, you switch to your prime character and be the star....

Really, this is Ars Magica's troupe play to a T.