Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Hussar]

Agreed - I think the design intent is that every PC can contribute meaningfully over the course of a typical session, which pre-3e is likely to be at least 80% non-combat, especially at lower levels since fights are fast and PCs cannot survive a lot of them. In a typical adventure most time is spent on exploration, not combat rolls. A typical dungeon-delve session of 4 hours
might involve a couple easy fights, where the smart M-U doesn't use his spell, an encounter with undead where the Cleric comes to the fore, and a major encounter where the M-U can employ Sleep or Charm Person to good effect, possibly saving the party. Out of 240 minutes play time, only about
40 to 50 minutes would be spent on resolving the 4 combats. IME, YMMV etc.

What? Really? 80% non-combat? Are you serious?

Wow. I don't think, back in the day, we ever had a session that wasn't 80% combat.

RC - the problem is, none of the play assumptions are actually called out, and, many, many groups didn't play under those assumptions.

You've said that my autowin doesn't work because I'm not playing the way that you play and that you're way of playing is the "presumed" way. How exactly is that not onetruewayism?

I'll also note that you ignore the actual meat of the arguement in order to nit-pick. So, I'll repeat myself:

Balance over the campaign is not balance. It is a series of imbalanced points that might over the long term, average out to a balance. However, play is never conducted over the long term. Play is always in the present, which means, at any given time, the system is actually imbalanced.

There's nothing wrong with saying that 1e was not a particularly well balanced system. It's not. If it was, then more systems would follow the campaign method for game balance. The fact that no other system, and certainly no system published in the last decade follows this method* speaks volumes as to how effective a method of game balance it was.

* Overly Pedantic Caveat - I am of course excepting retro-clones which aren't really new games, but simply rewrites of AD&D.

Meh, this isn't going to go anywhere. I'm rather tired of AD&D being the Heisenburg edition - it's in all superpositions at the same time. It's the incredibly detailed tactical game that runs simply in fractions of the time later editions play in. It's perfectly balanced in all aspects of play no matter what. It's all things to all people at all times and no criticism may ever be leveled at the system.

I'm out of this one.

 

[NewJeffCT]

This assumption that the whole of the game is just one big combat encounter is the primary reason that some see balance in such a skewed fashion.

Lets take a look at 3E and the wonderful balance we have there outside of combat. Joe fighter is tough, strong and good with a sword.
Lets plop him into an exploration scenario for a bit. Oh wow look at those skill points, and that selection! Assuming we need to constantly jump,climb, swim or ride we shall let Joe do his thing. Meanwhile Felix the rogue is doing all kinds of cool stuff like searching, picking locks, deciphering strange writing, disarming traps..... and hey if a fight does break out he can do damage on par with Joe thanks to getting to constantly sneak attack without having to be very sneaky at all.

Oh yeah, that's balanced. Maybe later in the campaign things get better for poor Joe............nope, the future looks even worse.

And, how is that different than 1E and 2E D&D? At least with 3E, a fighter can put ranks into a thief skill or the diplomacy skill or similar if they so choose. With 2E, you had NWPs where you could take Diplomacy to have a social skill, but you were still at a loss if you went to pick a lock or pick a pocket. And, in 1E, you were at a complete loss to do anything but fight until NWPs came along late in the process with Oriental Adventures. But, outside of fighting, a 1E or 2E fighter had even less chance to contribute than in 3E.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Actually in older editions, the leader was generally determined by who had the highest Charisma. The way my group played though is we took turns being the leader.

Yes, the group spokesman/leader was the one with the highest charisma - however, once you get past the first few levels, the most important PCs were the wizards and/or the elf fighter/wizards. They were like Kirk & Spock, while straight classed human PCs were Sulu & Chekhov... still pretty cool at times, but clearly not the stars.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And, how is that different than 1E and 2E D&D? At least with 3E, a fighter can put ranks into a thief skill or the diplomacy skill or similar if they so choose. With 2E, you had NWPs where you could take Diplomacy to have a social skill, but you were still at a loss if you went to pick a lock or pick a pocket. And, in 1E, you were at a complete loss to do anything but fight until NWPs came along late in the process with Oriental Adventures. But, outside of fighting, a 1E or 2E fighter had even less chance to contribute than in 3E.

I can't argue with very much of that. However in 1E especially once combat started the thief wasn't right there on par with the fighter was he?
There might be a chance to hide and get in a good backstab but the fighter was clearly better at fighting. Imagine that.

The entire point of this exercise was not intended as an attack on 3E but to illustrate the issues that arise when speaking of balance in terms of absolutes either purely for combat or without it. When comparing balance it isn't a fair comparison unless both modes of play are represented.

 

[Dausuul]

You've said that my autowin doesn't work because I'm not playing the way that you play and that you're way of playing is the "presumed" way. How exactly is that not onetruewayism?

You have a point, but it's not the point you think you have.

Raven Crowking is right that balance can only be understood in terms of the baseline assumptions of the game. If you deviate from those assumptions, the game will not be balanced. That's not onetruewayism, it's just a fact of life.

If you play 3E and don't throw 4 encounters per day at the party, you're not playing according to the baseline assumptions, and there are apt to be balance issues as a result. If you play 4E and 75% of the encounters consist of swarms and minions, likewise. It doesn't mean you're wrong to run your game this way (which is why it's not onetruewayism)--however you run your game, if everyone is having fun, is the right way. But it means you may face some challenges that someone with a different playstyle would not face.

(For the record, I seldom had more than 1 fight per day when I ran 3E. And yes, there were balance problems because of that, and I'm glad 4E doesn't rely so heavily on pushing the party through X encounters between extended rests.)

The point that you do have is that AD&D was... unhelpful in terms of telling you what the baseline was. I'm not even convinced there was an explicit baseline, although it's been a long time since I paged through my old DMG, so maybe it's got more useful material than I'm remembering.

 

[billd91]

What? Really? 80% non-combat? Are you serious?

I think he's serious. I believe him too. We spent a LOT of time exploring empty room, searching around for things (what snarky detractors now call "pixel bitching"), a lot less time fighting in 1e days.

Wow. I don't think, back in the day, we ever had a session that wasn't 80% combat.

Well that's you, now isn't it? That's not him. Why do you feel the need to question him just because your experiences are different? Is he playing it wrong or something?

RC - the problem is, none of the play assumptions are actually called out, and, many, many groups didn't play under those assumptions.

They may not be called out as assumptions, but there's a lot you can infer from the DMG. And, frankly, with the design of 1e, there's a lot more tolerance in the system than in the over-designed 3e and 4e. So minor deviations from the assumptions won't exactly shatter the balance in the system... unlike 3e and 4e.

Balance over the campaign is not balance. It is a series of imbalanced points that might over the long term, average out to a balance. However, play is never conducted over the long term. Play is always in the present, which means, at any given time, the system is actually imbalanced.

How big a time frame are we considering as "in the present"? Is it an instant in time? A day? An adventure? A segment, a round, a turn, an hour? I ask because this exact thing can be said about all editions of D&D. 4e characters run into a trap and only the rogue has taken Thievery as a trained skill. Where's the balance there? Is the "present" in that situation the task of dealing with the trap?

Just because 1e doesn't meet your definition of balance doesn't mean it's not a better balanced game than you realize.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When I was a teenager, we once spent most of a session trying to figure out a mystery the GM had concealed in a long poem he'd written. That was a very bad rpg session, but it certainly wasn't combat heavy.

 

[Jhaelen]

In my experience, older editions (OD&D/1E/2E) were very unbalanced in theory but ended up having much better balance in practice. 3E/3.5E made a serious attempt at being balanced in theory, but ended up being very unbalanced in practice.

Wow, my experience was completely different.

I've played OD&D and AD&D 1e with a bunch of DMs who didn't have the slightest clue about balance and regularly managed to kill off one or more pcs because of it.

Or are you talking about 'balance' between character classes?

There wasn't any, at least in the 'modern' sense. It was generally accepted that magic users started out weak and dominated the game in the higher levels. That didn't keep anyone from playing classes that were perceived as being 'weak', though.

Apparently, not only the concept of balance has changed but also the mindset of players.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I can't argue with very much of that. However in 1E especially once combat started the thief wasn't right there on par with the fighter was he?
There might be a chance to hide and get in a good backstab but the fighter was clearly better at fighting. Imagine that.

The entire point of this exercise was not intended as an attack on 3E but to illustrate the issues that arise when speaking of balance in terms of absolutes either purely for combat or without it. When comparing balance it isn't a fair comparison unless both modes of play are represented.

In 3E and 3.5, the rogue still was not an equal to the fighter in combat, as there are a whole host of monsters/baddies that are immune to critical hits, and therefore immune to sneak attack damage. Plus, the fighter had the advantage of a higher BAB and more attacks per round.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That Moathouse offer stands, if anyone still imagines sleep was an autowin in 1e.


RC