Game Balance - A Study in Imperfection (forked)

[MerricB]

RAW, that uber character is not that much more likely to survive. Even with straight 18 stats and max hit points at first level it only takes a single crit or a couple of spear jabs to end the character. 12-14 hit points is still just 12-14 hit points. Dead at zero is a harsh mistress.

Now, if house rules are used (such as death at -10) to limit lethality, most of these ideas of balance are thrown out the window as death will most likely only come on a TPK.

Too true. There was a 3e play in a game I ran who rolled - and we all witnessed it - the following stats: 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 14.

The poor fool's character died in his very first session, pulled to pieces by zombies. I still don't know why - he wasn't a bad player. Oh well. It was amusing!

Cheers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even without the death at 0 rule, a 1st level PC can die quite quickly...I've had LOTS of experience with that:

1. Half-Orc ranger who took a header off a cliff that was behind the door he busted through
2. Gnome Illusionist/Thief who got seperated from his party and surrounded by skeletons...
3. Minotaur who got max critted by a foe with a 2handed sword.
4. Arion Dragomir- a Player's Option Cleric called "Superman" by another player- who took a pair of large spears to the gut.

Most of these deaths happened within the first 3 adventures of the campaigns in which they lived.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Actually, in 1e, 3d6 was never one of the recommended options.

1Ed also had multiclassing and dual-classing.

In addition, for both 1Ed and 2Ed, 3d6 was so commonly supplanted by 4d6 drop lowest that it might as well have been official. On top of that, the original Unearthed Arcana introduced a plethora of alternative stat generation methods, including one that was designed so that you picked your PC's class first, THEN generated stats via a method loaded to produce viable stats that matched character prereqs...such as Barbarians rolling 9d6 drop lowest 6 for Str.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is a bit of a problem of what the balance actually achieves. Character effectiveness? Player enjoyment? Moments of Awesome? Mathematical similarity? Unique Contributions? Narrative control? All sorts of different ways to measure it.

I mean, for certain values of "balance," you could argue that a given rules element is or is not balanced.

According to the idea of narrative control, a high-level wizard's ability to make his own plane is probably more significant than a high-level fighter's ability to kill all the goblins on the planet in five rounds, but if the idea of balance is character effectiveness, making a plane isn't going to help you in any major way, but being able to kill all the goblins certainly is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

lots of interesting posts here.

@ positive feedback:

Most interestingly, balance by rarity, thanks to stat requirements, held positive feedback in check:

If you roll up a paladin, yu have to put your 17 or 18 into charisma. This means you don´t have it for strength and constitution. Without specialization and a very catastrophic xp table you quickly fall behind the fighters pure damage output. (If this is what balance is al about.)

@ balance by risk: may spells were designed that way: summon elemental e.g. it could always turn around and kill you.

I have another balance aspect:
Balance by playstyle:
The wizard and the fighter were so different, that different players had fun with each of them, because they could shine in different situations. I can´t remember a lot of situations where my fellow players were unhappy with their fighters. I however neither liked the fighter, nor the pure wizard. A bard most often fitted best.

Also there was balance by monster/combat design. This would fall under DM fiat if you like, but there were monsters that suddenly made your casters or fighters quite obsolete. So everyone could shine.
Also team play was encouraged because of very bad consequences if the fighter allows monsters to reach wizards.

But the last balance mechanism was: balance by trust in the DM. Without a battlemap it was important that you trusted your DM that he allows each character to shine in combat. Of course he tried to reach the wizard with his monsters, but the fighter used "narrative powers" to help the wizard:

"Come and get it" the fighter says, and the monster will try his best.

 

[Ariosto]

In addition, for both 1Ed and 2Ed, 3d6 was so commonly supplanted by 4d6 drop lowest that it might as well have been official.

In 1E, "4d6 drop lowest" and arrange to taste was official (Method I) -- and 3d6 was not, except in the increasingly complicated multiple-roll schemes of Methods II (12 rolls), III (36 rolls) and IV (72 rolls).

On top of that, the original Unearthed Arcana introduced a plethora of alternative stat generation methods, including one that was designed so that you picked your PC's class first ...

No plethora, just that one -- Method V, for humans only.

Just goes to show: the desire to play cool concepts (including "rare" classes like Paladin) will tend to corrode Balance by Rarity.

The desire to play the "cool concepts" introduced for non-humans in Unearthed Arcana, as well as the human-only Barbarian class, already blew the old balance to smithereens! As with Weapon Specialization to help the Fighter keep up, Method V was an attempt to prop up humans and establish a new balance.

What of the monsters, then? Well, Gary wrote that he envisioned pulling out again the trick of bigger Hit Dice (d10, d12 and d20) that had been applied to Demons in Eldritch Wizardry. Even without that, the opponents in Monster Manual II (including the infamous "deadly domestic cat" capable of dealing up to 5 points in a round) tended, I think, to be a bit tougher than comparable creatures in the first MM.

 

[MerricB]

(including the infamous "deadly domestic cat" capable of dealing up to 5 points in a round) tended, I think, to be a bit tougher than comparable creatures in the first MM.

I always thought that the Cat Lord was one of Gygax's favourite creations. (He is one of mine as will).

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

I think the 1E Barbarian plays pretty well as a Conan-type solo character, or with a group of Fighters and Thieves, but is very hard to fit into the more typical AD&D party. I don't see it as crippled for want of weapon specialization, but I suspect that WS (if used at all) could stand to be scaled back a bit.

I don't think "bonus inflation" is somehow especially good at high levels -- whether a magic weapon or just a specialized one, a bigger bonus for it means a bigger penalty when it's necessary to use something else -- but if everyone else is in the arms race then one can hardly leave the archetypal man at arms out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I played several 1Ed Barbarians...never had an issue with them.

 

[Nifft]

My biggest issue with balance was that it is always just an illusion on a piece of paper. Once we allow players to control the perfectly balanced character the balance is messed up as all players are not equal. For years when I ran D&d games at cons I would give some people the same character sheets (becasue I was lazy) but not tell them. At the end of there session they would be convinved that one person was a few levels higher then the other person just because one players was better or luckier then the other.

I don't think that equality of experience has ever been a realistic design goal. Dunno if it even is a desirable design goal -- people want different things out of their games.

However, IMHO equality of opportunity is desirable. Just because people are bad at measuring a thing -- like equality of opportunity -- does not mean that thing is irrelevant!

It is worth noting that 1st/2nd editions are not nearly as wizard centric as people tend to claim. No bonus spells and the opposition having good saves crimps a wizard's style somewhat fierce.

Also, rolling to see if you can learn spells. This is like rolling for stats or HP: it's a form of meta-amortized pwnage, or balance by rarity. You may eventually play a Wizard who can learn whatever spell it was you wanted to learn, but it isn't up to you when that happens.

I suspect you could balance teleports with the addition of (easy to use) traces and blocks. But I agree that, out of the box, teleport is too strong to be risk free!

What I did in my D&D 3.5e game was:
- Teleportation is noisy! Blink is like someone shouting "bampfh!", teleport is as loud as thunder, and plane shift is like a divine thunderclap, which echos for miles around.
- Teleportation is slow! Blink happens normally, but teleport actually takes 3 rounds to "finish", and the noise of an incoming teleport is loud enough that anyone in the area knows what's coming.
- You can only teleport to a place you personally have been. Thus, adventurers are often hired to go places to which teleport routes are desired.

There is a bit of a problem of what the balance actually achieves. Character effectiveness? Player enjoyment? Moments of Awesome? Mathematical similarity? Unique Contributions? Narrative control? All sorts of different ways to measure it.

That's exactly what this thread is about. Looking at all the different ways D&D has been "balanced" over the years, and how the idea of balance has evolved.

The desire to play the "cool concepts" introduced for non-humans in Unearthed Arcana, as well as the human-only Barbarian class, already blew the old balance to smithereens! As with Weapon Specialization to help the Fighter keep up, Method V was an attempt to prop up humans and establish a new balance.

What of the monsters, then? Well, Gary wrote that he envisioned pulling out again the trick of bigger Hit Dice (d10, d12 and d20) that had been applied to Demons in Eldritch Wizardry. Even without that, the opponents in Monster Manual II (including the infamous "deadly domestic cat" capable of dealing up to 5 points in a round) tended, I think, to be a bit tougher than comparable creatures in the first MM.

Fascinating. I wasn't paying nearly enough attention to the rules changes back then, and had no idea the arms race between character and critter had already begun in earnest.

I played several 1Ed Barbarians...never had an issue with them.

What level range?

Cheers, -- N