Encounter balance in AD&D

[pemerton]

I was reading Appendix C and came across the following two sentences in the section on Underwater Encounters; both sentences occur on p 179, with fewer than 60 words in between them:

The numbers of monsters encountered are those shown in MONSTER MANUAL. . . .

Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party.​

What does this tell us about Gygaxian D&D?

 

[Tony Vargas]

That you should certainly have read it cover-to-cover very carefully.

 

[cmad1977]

That you should certainly have read it cover-to-cover very carefully.

More than once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonnyP71]

What does this tell us about Gygaxian D&D?

It tells us, that despite all the eccentricities it was actually rather sensible.

If a creature's entry in the MM states number appearing as 2-20, the DM should not simply roll 2d10 - they should choose the amount according to:

- party strength
- what the DM wants the encounter to achieve
- what is sensible for the situation/environment

 

[DM Howard]

I was reading Appendix C and came across the following two sentences in the section on Underwater Encounters; both sentences occur on p 179, with fewer than 60 words in between them:

The numbers of monsters encountered are those shown in MONSTER MANUAL. . . .

Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party.​

What does this tell us about Gygaxian D&D?

I think it brings us back to the idea that it is all up to what the DM wants to accomplish in his/her game.

A number of goblins as shown in the Monster Manual might be great for a specific situation with a low-level party, but at the same time it might be important to adjust that number to really intimidate the party. Not every encounter needs to end in a fight, players need to remember that balance is just a word in AD&D, and it functions much more like a real world where everything isn't level appropriate to the party.

 

[pemerton]

players need to remember that balance is just a word in AD&D

The AD&D rulebooks are replete with references to "balance".

Some instances:

PHB p 6: "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."

PHB p 7: "The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced . . ."

PHB p 94: "Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the wish spell is likely to be carried through. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary in order to maintain game balance. . . .)"

DMG p 7: "Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign . . ."

DMG p 24: "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments, those who are paladins, those with evil familiars, and so on. Part of the role they have accepted requires a set behavior mode, and its benefits are balanced by this."

DMG p 76: "If for some reason you must have an exact progression [for Turning Undead], follow the columns for levels 1, 2, and 3, correcting to the right from there - and thus rather severely penalizing the clerics of upper levels, but by no means harming play balance. . . . Do not otherwise alter the table as it could prove to be a serious factor in balance . . ."

DMG p 81: "You may assign modifiers to any saving thvows as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance."

DMG p 90: "You may, of course, adiust any prices and costs as you see fit for your own milieu. Be careful to observe the effects of such changes on both play balance and player involvement."

DMG p 91: "[F]it monsters and magic so as to be reasonable within the scope of your milieu and the particular facet of it concerned. Alter creatures freely, remembering balance."

DMG p 93: "As the campaign grows and deeper dungeons are developed, you exercise the same care in placement of selected and balanced magic items."

DMG p 118: "[Non-standard magic] items must be such as to not unbalance the game."

DMG p 121: "[T]he MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game."​

it functions much more like a real world where everything isn't level appropriate to the party.

Huh? How does this clam fit with the rulebook quotes in the OP? These include "Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party," which is pretty much the opposite of what you have claimed to be the way that AD&D functions.

 

[DM Howard]

The AD&D rulebooks are replete with references to "balance".

Some instances:

PHB p 6: "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."

PHB p 7: "The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced . . ."

PHB p 94: "Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the wish spell is likely to be carried through. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary in order to maintain game balance. . . .)"

DMG p 7: "Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign . . ."

DMG p 24: "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments, those who are paladins, those with evil familiars, and so on. Part of the role they have accepted requires a set behavior mode, and its benefits are balanced by this."

DMG p 76: "If for some reason you must have an exact progression [for Turning Undead], follow the columns for levels 1, 2, and 3, correcting to the right from there - and thus rather severely penalizing the clerics of upper levels, but by no means harming play balance. . . . Do not otherwise alter the table as it could prove to be a serious factor in balance . . ."

DMG p 81: "You may assign modifiers to any saving thvows as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance."

DMG p 90: "You may, of course, adiust any prices and costs as you see fit for your own milieu. Be careful to observe the effects of such changes on both play balance and player involvement."

DMG p 91: "[F]it monsters and magic so as to be reasonable within the scope of your milieu and the particular facet of it concerned. Alter creatures freely, remembering balance."

DMG p 93: "As the campaign grows and deeper dungeons are developed, you exercise the same care in placement of selected and balanced magic items."

DMG p 118: "[Non-standard magic] items must be such as to not unbalance the game."

DMG p 121: "[T]he MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game."​

I would argue that all but one of those citations is in regards to internal player balance rather than Player vs Monster balance. The monster citation seems to concern balance in monster design rather than encounter balance.

Huh? How does this clam fit with the rulebook quotes in the OP? These include "Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party," which is pretty much the opposite of what you have claimed to be the way that AD&D functions.

Newer editions have both an implied and mechanical approach to encounter/adventure balance. Players tend to expect a very reasonable chance of defeating EVERY encounter they come across. Not so in AD&D, in my opinion of course!

 

[pemerton]

I would argue that all but one of those citations is in regards to internal player balance rather than Player vs Monster balance.

Yes. That's because Gygaxian AD&D is predicated on the assumption that players choose what encounters their PCs confront.

This is spelled out in the advice to players in the PHB (about investigation, using detection magic, etc); and in the rules for evasion, which make it fairly straightforward for a party that takes sensible steps to avoid wandering monsters.

Wandering monsters, especially large groups of wanderers in the wilderness, threaten to undermine this paradigm.

This is why Gygax offers words of caution about wandering monsters very early in the DMG (p 9):

[T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons . . . If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance.​

I think that the advice about making numbers encountered appropriate to the strength of the encountering party is intended similarly.

Newer editions have both an implied and mechanical approach to encounter/adventure balance. Players tend to expect a very reasonable chance of defeating EVERY encounter they come across. Not so in AD&D, in my opinion of course!

Newer editions assume that the GM, rather than the players, choose what is encountered. (AD&D modules beging to make similar assumptions, I think, starting around 1983/84 with modules like Ravenloft and the Dragonlance series.)

But AD&D does assume that the players have a reasonable chance of dealing with EVERY encounter they come across - either by defeating monsters that the players have chosen to assault in the dungeon, and either by defeating or evading randomly encountered monsters.

(The absence of evasion mechanics from later editions is one mark in the change in expectation as to who chooses encounters.)

 

[DM Howard]

Yes. That's because Gygaxian AD&D is predicated on the assumption that players choose what encounters their PCs confront.

This is spelled out in the advice to players in the PHB (about investigation, using detection magic, etc); and in the rules for evasion, which make it fairly straightforward for a party that takes sensible steps to avoid wandering monsters.

Wandering monsters, especially large groups of wanderers in the wilderness, threaten to undermine this paradigm.

This is why Gygax offers words of caution about wandering monsters very early in the DMG (p 9):

OK, I can agree with the essence of what he is saying, but I am not really talking about purely wandering monsters encounters. Maybe that strays away from your OP a little, but I think the topic can stretch to all monster encounters, random or otherwise.

I think that the advice about making numbers encountered appropriate to the strength of the encountering party is intended similarly.

That's where we appear to diverge. I think it is a personal assumption, one way or another, so I hope you know am not saying my interpretation is better than yours.

Newer editions assume that the GM, rather than the players, choose what is encountered. (AD&D modules beging to make similar assumptions, I think, starting around 1983/84 with modules like Ravenloft and the Dragonlance series.)

I disagree that AD&D doesn't make the assumption that the DM chooses what the players encounter, and that DM encounter choice is some sort of post 70's phenomenon.

But AD&D does assume that the players have a reasonable chance of dealing with EVERY encounter they come across - either by defeating monsters that the players have chosen to assault in the dungeon, and either by defeating or evading randomly encountered monsters.

I do believe that AD&D assumes that the players can deal with every encounter, yes, but I define "deal" as anything that allows the party to complete the encounter. Be that bypassing, trapping, nulifying, or otherwise mitigating the encounter. Later editions do not assume this, their definition appears to be what yours is: dealing = defeat in combat. (Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.)

(The absence of evasion mechanics from later editions is one mark in the change in expectation as to who chooses encounters.)

I disgagree, wholeheartedly. I think the absence of evasion mechanics in later editions proves that players expect to be able to defeat every encounter handed to them, unlike AD&D.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree that AD&D doesn't make the assumption that the DM chooses what the players encounter, and that DM encounter choice is some sort of post 70's phenomenon.

Gygax-style AD&D (as presented in the rulebooks, and as discussed in the RPG magazines of the period) is based around dungeon exploration.

The GM builds the dungeon, but the players are the ones who (via their PCs) scout it out and choose which bits to try and assault, which bits to avoid, etc. If you look at Gygax's discussion of "Successful Adventures" on pp 107-9 of his PHB, you will see this very much in evidence. For instance,

et an objective . . . Once the obiective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. . . . Avoid unnecessary encounters. This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently. Your party has an objective, and wandering monsters are something which stand between them and it. . . . The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible. . . . Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible. The mappers must note all such things, and another expedition might be in order another day to investigate or destroy something or some monster, but always stay with what was planned if at all possible . . .​

Notice the emphasis on the players being the ones to set an objective, to choose which encounters to engage and which to avoid, etc. This is very different from (eg) the DL modules, or a more contemporary module like (eg) Speaker in Dreams, which assume that the players will proceed through a series of encounters chosen by the GM.

This is why AD&D doesn't need encounter-building guidelines, other than the very basic idea that the 1st level of a dungeon should have mostly 1st level monsters on it.

I do believe that AD&D assumes that the players can deal with every encounter, yes, but I define "deal" as anything that allows the party to complete the encounter. Be that bypassing, trapping, nulifying, or otherwise mitigating the encounter.

Yes. This is why I said "AD&D does assume that the players have a reasonable chance of dealing with EVERY encounter they come across - either by defeating monsters that the players have chosen to assault in the dungeon, and either by defeating or evading randomly encountered monsters."

AD&D does not assume that there will be encounters that the PCs can neither defeat nor evade. Ie that there will be hopeless situations in which the PCs find themselves. (At least in general - especially for low-level PCs this may sometimes happen through sheer misfortune, but it's not meant to be a ubiquitous feature of the game.)

I think the absence of evasion mechanics in later editions proves that players expect to be able to defeat every encounter handed to them, unlike AD&D.

I don't think this is right. There are also enforced "social" encounters - eg the GM has a red dragon turn up to talk to a group of 1st level PCs. And there are enforced "escape" encounters - eg this is part of the first DL module, I think.

The difference between these and the Gygaxian style is that the GM has deliberately placed the encounter to generate a certain sort of response from the players. (And you can see plenty of posters still advocating this approach in 5e threads.) Whereas in the Gygaxian style, if the encounter is a placed one - typically, a dungeon room occupant - then the players are expected to control their interaction with it (via scouting, planning etc); and if it is a random one then there are general reaction rules, evasion rules etc to make the outcome a combination of player choice and random chance rather than GM pre-determination.