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

[Rob Kuntz]

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.

All of what Snarf is referring to is what I have since typed as the "Corporate Ladder" model. Start low, get bennies here or there as you ascend, retire with a golden watch. Rinse and Repeat. This as opposed to what Arneson had done with BM, to give a large pool of HP up front and then let the games begin.

Gary, IMO, was obsessed with balance, this as no doubt informed by the models extant in wargames where this is a primary design concern. I saw it as more fluid as the rules (then) were open and the DM could adjust balance issues on the fly. There have been other rule-sets that stepped sideways to this model, notably Call of Cthulhu. OD&D/1E is what it is.

As for the spells I never liked the system and as early as 1975 had devised a granular overlay and reorganization of them to make the whole more dimensional.

 

[Stormonu]

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

Well, $#!+

 

[Charlaquin]

Rarity does not equal balance. I don't know how much more I can simplify this concept- this has nothing to do with balance.

I understand that’s your opinion. I disagree.

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.

It is a “rich get richer” mechanic, yes. But for what purpose are these bonuses being gate kept? Verisimilitude? That surely played a role. As you noted, the thinking was likely something along the lines of “Paladins should be rarer than Fighters; higher ability scores are rarer to roll; if being a Paladin requires high ability scores, they will be rarer.” But if versimilitude is the only purpose this gatekeeping serves, there’s no reason to give more powerful bonuses to the rarer classes. No gameplay reason for the rich to be richer. No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. To create a satisfying payoff for getting that high roll.

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.*

Yes, all of those things are also attempts at balance.

Giving cascading advantages to high rolls is not balance- at all! It's gatekeeping. It's hiding advantages behind minimum abilities;

But to what end? Why hide those advantages behind minimum abilities, if not to balance out their power with scarcity?

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 disagree that it’s particularly realistic. What it is is versimilar. It feels right that you should get some extra-special reward for rolling the high numbers. It feels right that the more powerful class be harder to get, because only the very gifted can become one. These things balance each other out. Not just anyone can get the super powerful classes/bonuses. They are “gatekept” behind stats that you’re unlikely to roll. This keeps the average character power level lower. It is, in my assessment, another attempt at balance. A different sort of balance than the other things you listed, but balance nonetheless.

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

Of course.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I understand that’s your opinion. I disagree.

It is a “rich get richer” mechanic, yes. But for what purpose are these bonuses being gate kept? Verisimilitude? That surely played a role. As you noted, the thinking was likely something along the lines of “Paladins should be rarer than Fighters; higher ability scores are rarer to roll; if being a Paladin requires high ability scores, they will be rarer.” But if versimilitude is the only purpose this gatekeeping serves, there’s no reason to give more powerful bonuses to the rarer classes. No gameplay reason for the rich to be richer. No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. To create a satisfying payoff for getting that high roll.

As I already pointed out in the OP, that was not the case with all the subclasses (which are all rarer). People can (and do) argue about the relative merits of the Assassin, Druid, and Illusionist (for example). No one thinks that those classes are absurdly overpowered compared to the base class.

"No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. "

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Rarity is not balance. "Look, dude, an 18 strength is balanced against a 10 strength because an 18 is more rare." That's not balancing.

"I see your Paladin has a holy avenger. Well, luckily, that's balanced against my normal broad sword, because your holy avenger is rare."

... And so on. Rarity is not balancing.

In fact, hiding "controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something" has a specific term for it ... and it's not balancing.

 

[Minigiant]

Game Balancing by rarity would not be discovered to be poor game design in multiplayer gaming until decades after 1e.

90% of 1e's failures came from not being able to learn from predecessors since it was first.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

A while ago I asked Frank Mentzer if he could go back and change one thing about BECMI, he said, "Going to level 36. It was too high. 20 level cap was more than enough."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A while ago I asked Frank Mentzer if he could go back and change one thing about BECMI, he said, "Going to level 36. It was too high. 20 level cap was more than enough."

Did you ask him what drugs he was on when he wrote the Immortals set?

Because I'd like some of those ... um, you know, for a friend.

 

[Stalker0]

I imagine it was a bit of both. Yes, from a world building standpoint it makes sense that Fighters are more common than Paladins and Rangers. But also, Paladins and Rangers ought to be more powerful if they’re rarer, no? If nothing else, to at least make them something worth aspiring to. Give them the cool abilities to make them the classes players hope to roll high enough to play.

I think it goes more to the notion of the "prestige class" not being more powerful, but more specialized.

Its not that the Ranger should be more fightery than the fighter, but a Ranger deep in the woods is going to look amazing compared to the Fighter. The paladin is not as good as the Fighter in general combat, but watch out when your facing the hordes of evil.

That is the way to have your cake and eat it to. These "prestige classes" are rarer because they are specialized, and you don't as many specialists out there. By that token, the specialists are godly in their niche, but don't compare as well to the generalist in other scenarios.

That is a better balancing system than simply "Paladins are Fighter+++"

 

[Rob Kuntz]

A while ago I asked Frank Mentzer if he could go back and change one thing about BECMI, he said, "Going to level 36. It was too high. 20 level cap was more than enough."

Well I agree and disagree with level attainment. I looked at it this way from the extant rules, then: If you are as powerful as a god then you should move horizontally as they do, for gods rarely move at the expense of other gods (vertically) for fear of an Apocalypse. This promotes the whole game laterally at a certain point; and I experimented with this concept in 1975 as the "God Game" model that attached to the aforementioned "Corporate Ladder" model when one started reaching very high (deific, legendary) levels. Thus the game continues but under a whole new set of circumstances.

 

[Charlaquin]

As I already pointed out in the OP, that was not the case with all the subclasses (which are all rarer). People can (and do) argue about the relative merits of the Assassin, Druid, and Illusionist (for example). No one thinks that those classes are absurdly overpowered compared to the base class.

Sure. As you say, some of Garry’s attempts at balance were more successful than others.

"No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. "

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Rarity is not balance. "Look, dude, an 18 strength is balanced against a 10 strength because an 18 is more rare." That's not balancing.

"I see your Paladin has a holy avenger. Well, luckily, that's balanced against my normal broad sword, because your holy avenger is rare."

... And so on. Rarity is not balancing.

Right, you’re thinking of “balance” on an individual-to-individual basis. A Holy Avenger is more powerful than a normal sword, so they’re not “balanced against each other.” I’m talking about balance across the broader playing field. A Holy Avenger is able to be as powerful as it is and still feel “fair” because it’s extremely rare. If everyone could get one as easily as they can get a normal sword, normal swords would feel pointless. But, because normal swords are easily accessible and Holy Avengers are not, they each have a purpose and a role. The power is “balanced out” by the rarity, making for a fair overall gameplay experience.

My comparison to Magic: the Gathering was very intentional. Magic is a game where rarity as a form of balance is integral to the game’s design. Nobody is going to make the argument that a powerful rare card like Jace the Mindsculptor isn’t way stronger than a common card like Youthful Knight. But, in an environment where card availability is limited, the rarity of the former balances its relative power. Commons, though typically weaker than rarer cards, are more important in limited, because they form the majority of the card pool, and are the basis on which you’ll be building a deck. A rare bomb can be useful, but if you try and build around it, you’re likely to end up with a much weaker deck than one built from a solid base of commons.

Of course, this form of balance fails when access to the rarer cards isn’t actually limited. Richard Garfield severely under-estimated the amount of product the average player would open, and realized that in the long-term, rarity wouldn’t serve to balance the more powerful cards like he thought it would, because people would just buy enough packs to get whatever cards they wanted regardless of rarity (which is why limited formats were invented).

Likewise in D&D, players just re-roll until they get the stats they want, or use more generous stat-generation methods, or “cheat” or otherwise manipulate the intended probability distribution so they can play what they want to play. This undermines the balance factor I believe stat requirements were supposed to create, making the powerful classes, bonuses, and other advantages of high stats more accessible than they were intended to be. Which is pretty much your thesis. I think we’re ultimately in agreement here but quibbling over terminology.