D&D General On Powerful Classes, 1e, and why the Original Gygaxian Gatekeeping Failed

[Charlaquin]

So, to more fully explain why this isn't a balancing tool (unlike XP charts, level caps for demi humans, or the way some classes sucked at lower levels compared to other classes) as opposed to a rarity issue-

Look back at the entirety of section 1. Throughout OD&D and into 1e, the use of high ability scores for gatekeeping was prevalent. High ability scores gave you all sorts of bonuses; not only the bonuses you got from the high ability scores (such as advantages to armor class, ability to be resurrected, advantages to thieving abilities, or even bonus spells), but they also allowed access to everything from special classes to XP bonuses to optional abilities (like psionics).

That's why this wasn't a balancing mechanism, but a gatekeeping mechanism. It had nothing to do with game balance, but instead provided cascading advantages for having high abilities.

I guess I’m not seeing a functional difference between “this powerful thing is balanced by being rarer” and “you got the rarer thing so you get more power.”

 

[Stormonu]

We say that, but ...

1. Several classes had capped level limits that were well above 9th level. Druid (14), Assassin (15), and Monk (17) all indicated that those hard caps were supposed to be meaningful, and all were well above 9th level.

2. Weird class abilities- such as the Fighter multi-attack. You didn't get the 2/1 until level 13 (Paladin & Fighter) or 15 (Ranger).

3. The existence of those insane spell tables ... the Cleric spell tavle went up to level 29, and there were no level 7 spells until level 16; the Illusionist went to level 26 and you didn't get level 7 spells until 14; and the MU table went to ... checking again ... squints ... LEVEL 29! And you didn't get those precious, game-destroying 9th level spells until level 18.

4. The occasional letter to Dragon Magazine, as well as the existence of Deities and Demigods and Q1, seemed to indicate that some people didn't just build strongholds, unless they did so ON ORCUS'S BONES.

Well, let me revise that slightly - I think that the D1-3/Q1 & S1 modules reflect as high as PCs were expected to get (14th, I think?). I don’t count the Bloodstone modules, as besides being an ad for Battlesystem, those modules are trolling players and DMs on a level par with Ruins of Greyhawk Castle.

As for point #3, I recall discussions (possibly by @Rob Kuntz ?) that the expanded spell advancement was primarily meant for NPC spellcasters to account for top-tier abilities they’d have, and that PCs got them was more or less a side bonus.

On #4, it’s funny you mention that as I’d recently been rereading some of the mail in Dragon about the guy whose ungodly level character blew up FR and demanded everyone send in their character sheets so he could claim their gear and XP for defeating them (somewhere around issue #98, as I recall). There were people playing to those high levels to the 30’s or 50’s, but I don’t think they were being taken very seriously by most folks, as evidenced by the printed responses.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this works better by limiting rare things per PC rather than balancing with the rarity for the group in general.

So if you wanted to make magic items rarer only allow three magic item slots per PC. Or go all in on the no more than three rangers restriction. Or classify some things as rare and you can only get one rarity (subclass add on powers, psionics, ridiculously high stats). Otherwise you get one player playing the rare card instead of everyone only getting one rare card in their pack

Agreed, that’s why I thought about giving each player a set number of characters. Turns high-stat characters into a resource limited per player instead of by the group as a whole.

 

[Alzrius]

There were people playing to those high levels to the 30’s or 50’s, but I don’t think they were being taken very seriously by most folks, as evidenced by the printed responses.

There were indeed people playing to such high levels, enough to warrant a response from TSR. Tim Kask's foreword to Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (affiliate link) - which is presented as the product description on the DriveThruRPG sales page - says the following:

This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

Lo and behold, trying to shame powergamers into reining themselves in didn't work. Who would have thought?

 

[Charlaquin]

There were indeed people playing to such high levels, enough to warrant a response from TSR. Tim Kask's foreword to Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (affiliate link) - which is presented as the product description on the DriveThruRPG sales page - says the following:



Lo and behold, trying to shame powergamers into reining themselves in didn't work. Who would have thought?

Such a bizarre tactic to me. If you don’t want players playing characters that powerful... Just don’t have progression go that high? It seems like it should be self-evident that players will do anything and everything a game allows them to do. If getting to 44th level and having hundreds of hit points is a thing the game allows, there will be players who do it.

 

[Voadam]

So, to more fully explain why this isn't a balancing tool (unlike XP charts, level caps for demi humans, or the way some classes sucked at lower levels compared to other classes) as opposed to a rarity issue-

Look back at the entirety of section 1. Throughout OD&D and into 1e, the use of high ability scores for gatekeeping was prevalent. High ability scores gave you all sorts of bonuses; not only the bonuses you got from the high ability scores (such as advantages to armor class, ability to be resurrected, advantages to thieving abilities, or even bonus spells), but they also allowed access to everything from special classes to XP bonuses to optional abilities (like psionics).

That's why this wasn't a balancing mechanism, but a gatekeeping mechanism. It had nothing to do with game balance, but instead provided cascading advantages for having high abilities.

There is also AD&D gatekeeping through restrictions.

Paladins have to be LG and abide by a number of restrictions to gatekeep to those who match the class concept.

Assassins have to be Evil for the same gatekeeping class concept reason.

Druids have to be True Neutral.

Racial limits on class selection can be seen the same way.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess I’m not seeing a functional difference between “this powerful thing is balanced by being rarer” and “you got the rarer thing so you get more power.”

So here is the difference:

A difference in XP progression is an attempt to balance. A Thief is a weaker class than a Paladin. But a Thief advances more quickly (Paladins take 2751 XP to get to 2nd level, which would get a Thief more than 250 XP into 3rd level). This is an attempt to balance.

Demi-humans get special abilities that humans do not. For example, they are allowed to multiclass (humans can only dual-class, with all the restrictions of doing that). They also get various racial abilities, from the dwarven bonus to saves v. rod, staves, wands, spells, and poison to the elvish bonus to hit with a bow or sword. The multiclass and racial abilities are balanced by the cap that demi-humans have - they aren't allowed to advance as far as humans are in any class except Thief (Assassin for half-orc), and in some cases, only NPC classes are allowed (usually cleric).

The overall balance between classes is also skewed; the famous example is the MU. Compared to editions that follow, the MU is underpowered, but the balance is specifically achieved in 1e across levels; the low-level MU is weak, and at higher levels becomes more powerful, whereas other classes have a more gradual power curve (and pity the poor illusionist).

This is in contrast to the ability scores; that is in no way a balancing mechanism. That is, for lack of a better analogy at this point, something that more closely models the real world (simulation) than something that is there for game balance. The better you are (abilities), the better you are, in an endless virtuous cycle. Good abilities give you access to certain classes, and bonuses, and psionics, and XP bonuses, and so on. It has nothing to do with balance.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, let me revise that slightly - I think that the D1-3/Q1 & S1 modules reflect as high as PCs were expected to get (14th, I think?). I don’t count the Bloodstone modules, as besides being an ad for Battlesystem, those modules are trolling players and DMs on a level par with Ruins of Greyhawk Castle.

For level 18+. GYGAX!!!???!!!!???!!!

 

[Charlaquin]

So here is the difference:

A difference in XP progression is an attempt to balance. A Thief is a weaker class than a Paladin. But a Thief advances more quickly (Paladins take 2751 XP to get to 2nd level, which would get a Thief more than 250 XP into 3rd level). This is an attempt to balance.

Demi-humans get special abilities that humans do not. For example, they are allowed to multiclass (humans can only dual-class, with all the restrictions of doing that). They also get various racial abilities, from the dwarven bonus to saves v. rod, staves, wands, spells, and poison to the elvish bonus to hit with a bow or sword. The multiclass and racial abilities are balanced by the cap that demi-humans have - they aren't allowed to advance as far as humans are in any class except Thief (Assassin for half-orc), and in some cases, only NPC classes are allowed (usually cleric).

The overall balance between classes is also skewed; the famous example is the MU. Compared to editions that follow, the MU is underpowered, but the balance is specifically achieved in 1e across levels; the low-level MU is weak, and at higher levels becomes more powerful, whereas other classes have a more gradual power curve (and pity the poor illusionist).

Right, I don’t disagree with any of that.

This is in contrast to the ability scores; that is in no way a balancing mechanism. That is, for lack of a better analogy at this point, something that more closely models the real world (simulation) than something that is there for game balance. The better you are (abilities), the better you are, in an endless virtuous cycle. Good abilities give you access to certain classes, and bonuses, and psionics, and XP bonuses, and so on.

Right, and those abilities are (theoretically) rare to roll, which ~balances~ out the fact that they give you access to those bonuses. You can say the bonuses are the reward for having those uncommonly high abilities rather than the rarity of the abilities being the balance point to the bonuses, but it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. The power and the rarity are counterpoints to one another.

It has nothing to do with balance.

I think your argument demonstrates the opposite.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right, I don’t disagree with any of that.

Right, and those abilities are (theoretically) rare to roll, which ~balances~ out the fact that they give you access to those bonuses. You can say the bonuses are the reward for having those uncommonly high abilities rather than the rarity of the abilities being the balance point to the bonuses, but it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. The power and the rarity are counterpoints to one another.

I think your argument demonstrates the opposite.

Rarity does not equal balance. I don't know how much more I can simplify this concept- this has nothing to do with balance. Instead, this is (to use the phrase I have returned to repeatedly) an example of "the rich getting richer." It's an example of gatekeeping (and, verisimilitude) not of any attempt to balance.

Having weaker classes advance more quickly? That's an attempt at balance.
Allowing demi-humans to multi-class and have special abilities, but then capping their levels? That's an attempt at balance.
Having some classes be weaker at low levels, and more powerful at higher levels? Again, that is an attempt at balance.*

Giving cascading advantages to high rolls is not balance- at all! It's gatekeeping. It's hiding advantages behind minimum abilities; moreover, these advantages tended to accrue in waves at character creation (so that everything from bonuses from that ability, to being a certain class, to percentile strength, to XP bonuses, to advantages in your class like bonuses to thieving abilities) would all get wrapped up; as realistic as it might have been, it wasn't balancing, and it wasn't even attempting to balance. It was attempting to reflect reality (simulationism), which isn't the same as a gaming concern (balance).


*I use the term "attempt at balance" in all of these advisedly- some are more successful than others.