D&D General Understanding the Design Principles in Early D&D

[James Gasik]

You're quite right, and I, for one, am not criticizing them for this. We wouldn't have the games we have now if not for their work. It's one of those ideas that could have been a brief flash in the pan, a one hit wonder, never to be heard from again, save found in a dusty old bookstore or in a box in an attic somewhere.

But that's not what happened. People got into the game and made it their own. And maybe the players have always been a step ahead of the developers the whole time. That's ok, we owe them a debt all the same.

Even if some of their decisions are sometimes difficult to understand all these decades later.

 

[Fifth Element]

They failed miserably, but that was absolutely the intent.

I have found that the "toolkit" explanation comes off as a post hoc justification by fans for the incoherent nature of the ruleset.

 

[Yaarel]

That would be principles along the lines of niche protection, balance achieved over time, and gatekeeping via rarity.

Thank goodness the mechanics have evolved since 1e!

These three items seem a fair description of 1e mechanical principles. ... Heh, tho I hate each of these three principles.

Niche protection: defacto, but seems unintentional to me. The 1e Thief can do things that the 1e Magic-User cant. But this seems to have to do with each class being a brand new subsystem created ad hoc with no real relationships to other classes and possibly conflicting and imbalancing with the other classes and their subsystems. 4e is the exact opposite, all classes use the same system. 5e is a synthesis but allows mix-matching class subsystems. I dislike niche protection because I feel character customization is more important.

Balance over time. This is definitely in play all the way into 3e. I call it "hazing". Suffer in this one level, and one gets to become broken in this other level. 1e famously did this with the Magic-User, fragile at 1, but vastly powerful at 17. But also the human race was less powerful early, but unlimited at higher level. This kind of hazing is present in 3e prestige classes whose prereqs required things that sucked but then granted overpowered features, whence its convoluted system mastery. 4e and 5e achieve (or at least value) balance between classes at the same levels.

Gatekeeping via rarity. Yep, still survives in 5e, unfortunately, when rolling ability scores randomly. The straight natural 18s are totally broken, if someone else gets straight natural 3s. Similarly rolling magic treasure randomly. I dont go near this kind of design concept. At least in 5e I dont have to, such as pointbuy scores and DM controlling treasure.

3e is so important for beginning to systematize the disparate ad hoc subsystems of 1e. 4e is so important for understanding how mechanical balance works. 5e really is a synthesis from all of the previous editions.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I started playing with 3E.

I read a ton on older editions and old-school D&D. But to be honest, it's all a blur in my head. I know there's some of the games where the races are classes, where some are not. I know some have THAC0, and others not. I know there's ten foot poles, and gold gives XP, and a dozen things like that. But I have no idea which edition is which, it's very hard to split things, even more so when they were two adjacent lines of products existing at the same time.

So it's very hard to understand the design intentions behind these products for newcomers.

 

[GreyLord]

Which really makes me wonder how anyone who didn't play with Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax (and company) figured it out to tell everyone else!

(Or maybe they didn't, and just made it up, and that's part of why early D&D seems so mysterious...)

Well, I didn't even own the books when I started. Some kids were playing this game and I wanted to join in. It was D&D. Didn't even know the rules, but I got hooked.

Didn't even own a set of the rules till later. I didn't even KNOW how to get a set of the rules when they first were playing (TBH). Now I have the rules of every edition (OD&D to 5e), but back then, I got to learn by joining others who were playing the game.

 

[James Gasik]

Thank goodness the mechanics have evolved since 1e!

These three items seem a fair description of 1e mechanical principles. ... Heh, tho I hate each of these three principles.

Niche protection: defacto, but seems unintentional to me. The 1e Thief can do things that the 1e Magic-User cant. But this seems to have to do with each class being a brand new subsystem created ad hoc with no real relationships to other classes and possibly conflicting and imbalancing with the other classes and their subsystems. 4e is the exact opposite, all classes use the same system. 5e is a synthesis but allows mix-matching class subsystems. I dislike niche protection because I feel character customization is more important.

Balance over time. This is definitely in play all the way into 3e. I call it "hazing". Suffer in this one level, and one gets to become broken in this other level. 1e famously did this with the Magic-User, fragile at 1, but vastly powerful at 17. But also the human race was less powerful early, but unlimited at higher level. This kind of hazing is present in 3e prestige classes whose prereqs required things that sucked but the granted overpowered features, whence its convoluted system mastery. 4e and 5e achieve (or at least value) balance between classes at the same levels.

Gatekeeping via rarity. Yep, still survives in 5e, unfortunately, when rolling ability scores randomly. The straight natural 18s are totally broken, if someone else gets straight natural 3s. Similarly rolling magic treasure randomly. I dont go near this kind of design concept. At least in 5e I dont have to, such as pointbuy scores and DM controlling treasure.

3e is so important for beginning to systematize the disparate ad hoc subsystems of 1e. 4e is so important for understanding how mechanical balance works. 5e really is a synthesis from all of the previous editions.

Is straight 18's broken? I mean, thinking about this, I would say it depends on the class. A Wizard doesn't have any real need for 18 Strength, for example.

A Fighter is largely intended to wear heavy armor, so 18 Dex might be useful, but not great. An 18 Intelligence can be vestigial for non-Eldritch Knights.

For most characters, mostly an 18 in an off stat does for them is make them better at that saving throw and skills attached to it. I guess 18 Dex has initiative too.

And unless you're a Charisma-based caster, congrats, you got an extra few percentage points on your talking skill that might be redundant with an actual Charisma-based caster anyways.

Yes, in general, having higher ability scores means you have more potential power, but few classes can leverage that into a an absolutely dominating position.

Even something extreme like Unarmored Defense just means that you have an AC comparable to heavy armor and/or shield.

 

[GreyLord]

Regardless, your FUNDAMENTAL point, as you label it, is directly contradicted by the EXPRESS INTENT of the authors, as stated in the very books in question. It is insanely rare for intent to be spelled out so clearly -and yet it was here - twice. They wanted these books to be all you needed to play D&D. They did not say, "Hey, we wrote these books with the intent that you'll need a bunch of magazine articles to figure out what we mean here." They wrote these as the standalone books you'd need to run a game.

Obvisouly they intended to sell books that added onto it by adding Deities, or providing adventures - but they had the intent, when writing these books, as they expressly state, that they would be all of the rules you needed for the game. THEY FAILED IN THAT EFFORT. However, what they realized after they wrote the books does not change what they intended when they wrote the books.

Since we are so eager to use quotations from the AD&D core books... perhaps we should look a little further??

The letter stated above was what was written by CARR...but if you look a little further into the PHB you come to what Gygax actually wrote as an intro, part of which says...

No individual can actually dictate the axtual operations of a campaign, however, for that is the prerogative of the Dungeon Master, first and foremost, and to the players in the individual campaign thereafter. In like manner, players greatly influence the events of each particular campaign, and they must accept a large portion of blame if it is a poor game, and if the campaign is outsnding, they deserve high praise for helping to shape the game and playing well. So at best I give you parameters here, and he rest is up to the individuals who are the stuff D&D is made of.

Later on, under the heading of the Game in the PHB is states...

The game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the atraction of Advanced Dungeons & Dragon, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have apprpriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Particpants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse - since the most effective protest is withdrawal fro mthe offending campaign. Each campaign is a specially tailored affair. White it is drawn by the referee upon the outlines of hte three books which comprise ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, the players add the color and details, so the campaign must ultimately please al participants.

Can it seem contradictory at times. Probably. Is it on purpose so that it is written in that manner? Almost definately.

From the Introduction of the DMG

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. [He then goes on to excoriate the wandering monster tables and their use].

Once again, can it be read to contradict itself in the same context of those passages...obviously so.

The game itself was played more with the rules as a framework back then. Were there those who tried to play it exactly by the books...absolutely...and they could do so. There were others that did it differently...Gygax being one who constantly tampered with the rules and such (and if you thought Gygax was bad...Arneson almost played a freeform of it from what I understand...) and introduced new ideas.

Dragon constantly was adding ideas or subtracting them.

I feel TSR was attempting to retain control over the games and set some organizational rules with them in play (so that tournaments would be more organized for example) while at the same time trying to also allow most games played at home or elsewhere to have the freedom to change it up as needed or wanted.

They were having cake and eat it at the same time, and in large part...probably succeeding.

 

[Yaarel]

Is straight 18's broken?

If one player has all 18s, but an other player is forced to play the all 3s, the situation is broken.

Similarly, random magic items can be broken.

The problem is "rarity" has nothing to do with balance. It doesnt matter if something broken is rare - if it happens the game breaks.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh well, yeah, sorry I guess I missed your point. I thought you were saying that high stats across the board by themselves were problematic. One can have better numbers but not be extremely better, but yes, if there's a vast gulf, that is problematic.

Which is why most groups have adopted point-buy, even though how balanced it is depends greatly on your class. Some classes struggle more with point buy than others.

Rarity for magic items, I take with a grain of salt. If you've ever played Champions, sometimes a certain power will have a "STOP" sign by it, just to warn you that it can have issues if you're not prepared for it.

I look at Rarer magic items thusly. And if I randomly rolled up something rare I was not prepared for, I'd reroll.

Some of the bigger problems I had in AL was when we went on Storm King's Thunder, and the DM randomly rolled treasure parcels. A few characters got some real gems, like my character's Robe of Eyes, and one player got a Staff of Power that I felt was over the top for the canned adventures were were going on.

Though the two weapon Fighter who thought his Cloak of Displacement made him invincible was a gem. He had some of the best items I'd ever seen, including the Sunblade, and he was always the first to go down in a fight.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I feel TSR was attempting to retain control over the games and set some organizational rules with them in play (so that tournaments would be more organized for example) while at the same time trying to also allow most games played at home or elsewhere to have the freedom to change it up as needed or wanted.

They were having cake and eat it at the same time, and in large part...probably succeeding.

I had a prior post on this-

D&D General - And You May Ask Yourself- How do I play D&D? Commercialization and the Closing of OD&D

This is the second in three essays based off of Jon Peterson's book, The Elusive Shift ("ES"). While I will be discussing concepts he raised, I will also be extrapolating from his concepts with some of my own thoughts in these essays. That means some of these conclusions are my own, after...

www.enworld.org

While that post concentrated on the commercialization of AD&D, it really goes into that warring nature inherent in the product. OD&D was truly a toolkit by hobbyists and for hobbyists.

AD&D, which was for all practical purposes, just OD&D with a bunch of stuff grafted on from the supplements, TSR/Dragon articles, and some new material from Gygax, was much closer to what I would think of as a modular system. It was still a toolkit and incomplete in many ways, but it was much more standardized than what had preceded it.