Balanced encounters - yesterday vs. today

[Raven Crowking]

I did at one time. I got tired of being called a liar and finally decided that anybody who is caught up enough in "AD&D didn't. . ." despite solid evidence such as that which you've posted here, is never going to change their position. Simply put, it's not an argument worth having.

That's because the "evidence" moves from

"Of all these dungeons, 15+ levels, hundreds of encounters, I found only one encounter that is truly overwhelming for it's stated level -- the party of giants in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."​

to

"Yes, for 1st-level characters, the minotaur and owlbear would be overwhelming encounters. But they are not overwhelming for a party of 3rd-level PCs (still within the range of levels the adventure was designed for). I'll agree, though, this could be argued as an example of the concept."​

with even the slightest examination.

Quasqueton is correct in saying that much of the advice found in current editions existed in older editions. The Expert rulebook, for instance, says that Raise Dead should be available in the PC's base town. However, what Quasqueton excerpts is not the totality of the advice, nor is it all that is exampled. Older versions of D&D, IMHO, model a paradigm in which the DM holds the hands of new players for a time, and then cuts them loose into the world. Because the players, not the DM, largely determine what challenges are to be faced (i.e., do we risk going into the deeper dungeon levels to get larger rewards?), the players may end up over their heads. Moreover, the books actively encouraged DM tricks such as moderate slopes and chutes that (knowingly or unknowingly) brought PCs to levels they were not ready for.

A quick read through the player advice in the back of the 1e PHB gives a very good idea of what a player was expected to be prepared for.


RC

 

[jdrakeh]

A quick read through the player advice in the back of the 1e PHB gives a very good idea of what a player was expected to be prepared for.

Of your entire post, the above quote is all that is relevant, really. The OP pointed out that people often promote AD&D as having no advice or focus on encounter balance. And this simply isn't true. Period. I said that I quit pointing this out because, despite being able to point much actual material in AD&D that suggests methods of balancing encounters (such as monster levels), I was frequently branded a liar. My point stands.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't think the problem is actually in (most) published AD&D material ... armies of draconians notwithstanding ... I think the problem is the perception of out-of-balance encounters in homemade adventures due to the lack of clear guidance on how to "build a good encounter". This despite the tables at the back of the 1E DMG which allowed you to pick monsters appropriate to character level (and were a good substitute if you didn't have a Monster Manual).

 

[Quasqueton]

That's because the "evidence" moves from

"Of all these dungeons, 15+ levels, hundreds of encounters, I found only one encounter that is truly overwhelming for it's stated level -- the party of giants in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."


to

"Yes, for 1st-level characters, the minotaur and owlbear would be overwhelming encounters. But they are not overwhelming for a party of 3rd-level PCs (still within the range of levels the adventure was designed for). I'll agree, though, this could be argued as an example of the concept."


with even the slightest examination.

It reads like you are suggesting I've changed the rules of evidence. Is that what you are saying? If so, that's rather rude.

In a module for 1st to 3rd level characters, there will be 1st to 3rd level challenges. That's the definition of "for characters level 1-3", yes? 3rd level challenges will be too tough for 1st level characters, but not for the 3rd level characters. I think I covered this concept with:

Now, of course if the party is just three PCs of level 4, the challenges in the level 4-7 module would be overwhelming. But then for a party of eight PCs of level 7, the challenges in the level 4-7 module would be cake walks. This is true today and was true yesterday.

Just remember, I'm prompting and hoping to participate in a discussion, here. I'm not trying to make and win a point. If you are trying to win an argument. . .

Quasqueton

 

[jdrakeh]

I think the problem is the perception of out-of-balance encounters in homemade adventures due to the lack of clear guidance on how to "build a good encounter".

I think you and Q are onto something here. I believe the perception that AD&D had no care for balance seems to have come about due to the heavily house-ruled or home-brewed variants of the game that many people were playing back in the Golden Age. As several other fans of older editions have mentioned here and elsewhere, for them (as well as for me) it was a rare occurance to be playing in an AD&D campaign that strictly adhered to every aspect of the RAW. The guidlines for encounter balance seemed to be ignored frequently.

 

[gizmo33]

The OP pointed out that people often promote AD&D as having no advice or focus on encounter balance. And this simply isn't true. Period.

I agree, 1E must have had some advice somewhere on encounter balance of course. But I don't see any of the 4 quotes in the OP saying that it didn't. AFAICT the quotes talk about a degree of certainty, people "felt" like there was more uncertainty in 1E dungeons. This would be common sense, don't you think? Just for the sheer fact that EL is designed to tell you exactly this, and nothing like the algorithms for calculating EL existed in 1E. The old dungeons probably did an ok job of balance, but AFAIK new dungeons tend to be for a single level of character, whereas the level range (ex. 4-7th) just increased the chance that something would go wrong. (In fact, wasn't the White Plume Mountain range 4-10!?)

Plus there are two things (YMMV, admittedly) that people perceive about 1E vs. 3E. One is that the advice to "run away and fight another day" was much more prevelant in the older rules.

The second was that there's been a marked increase in the "hey, that's not an appropriate EL!" type statements on the internet. That's something that I don't really recall seeing in the 1E days (even in 1E terms of "hey, that's too tough"). In fact, there were statements to the contrary - I vaguely recall in Dragon magazine where Gygax relates a story of chasing PCs around the dungeon with a bunch of Balrogs. There was the story regarding the Iron Golem in the Maure Castle dungeon - that sounded really bad for the PCs as well. Maybe some of us are too old to remember where we got these impressions, but I don't think it's because we were brainwashed by some propoganda that emerged only with the 3E rules.

The bottom line, as is the case of much of these edition threads, is that people's experiences are what they're talking about when they post. It's hard to see how one could hope to prove something "wrong" about the way people felt during the 1E days vs. 3E days.

 

[jdrakeh]

I agree, 1E must have had some advice somewhere on encounter balance of course. But I don't see any of the 4 quotes in the OP saying that it didn't. AFAICT the quotes talk about a degree of certainty, people "felt" like there was more uncertainty in 1E dungeons.

I think that you're being very liberal with your interpretation of those quotes. Many of them very specifically highlight a lack of or focus on balance as a feature of AD&D1e. And I've certainly heard many fans claim that AD&D id better than D&D 3.5 because it had no rules for balancing encounters. Fact is, monster levels were very specifically designed for this very thing. They weren't as upfront as CR in D&D 3.5 but they existed to do the same thing.

 

[gizmo33]

I think that you're being very liberal with your interpretation of those quotes.

"The biggest thing I've noticed is the sense of danger" (to paraphrase). That's just the first quote. How liberal do I have to be? How do you get from "sense of danger" to knowing how the poster feels about the existence of specific rules?

Many of them very specifically highlight a lack of or focus on balance as a feature of AD&D1e.

Lack of focus and lack of existence are two different things. Maybe I'm not being liberal enough with your statements. When you say "people say there were no balance rules in 1E" and none of the 4 quotes say that, I thought it worth pointing out. No sense in attributing an extreme attitude to people who haven't expressed it.

And I've certainly heard many fans claim that AD&D id better than D&D 3.5 because it had no rules for balancing encounters. Fact is, monster levels were very specifically designed for this very thing. They weren't as upfront as CR in D&D 3.5 but they existed to do the same thing.

What "monster levels" are you talking about? Wandering monster encounter tables for dungeons? First of all those don't even cover non-dungeon monsters. Secondly, Tiamat shows up on the Level X chart! You really think Gygax was saying that Tiamat was a 10th level encounter? A minotaur shows up as a Dungeon level V monster, and in a level 1-3 dungeon. I don't think there was anything that looks like the CR system in 1E, and I really don't think that the wandering monster charts for dungeons were that.

That being said, people talked about encounter balance in the 1E days, and I'm sure there was a Dragon Mag article that perhaps tried to propose a system for calculating challenges. I think it goes too far to suggest that 1E didn't care about encounter balance.

So IMO the truth is in the middle, and I don't think it clarifies anything to assume that a statement that refutes an extreme automatically supports the opposite extreme. Though that is Rule 1 for the edition wars IME.

 

[Marshal Lucky]

I think the Moathouse in The Village Of Hommlet is an almost guaranteed TPK if the party is 4-6 1st level PCs. The bugbears (surprise) and ghouls (paralyzation) are the hardest part for 1st level characters. That said, the PCs have the option of running away if the you-know-what hits the fan.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think the Moathouse in The Village Of Hommlet is an almost guaranteed TPK if the party is 4-6 1st level PCs.

I think the moathouse encounters assume the PCs will be accompanied by NPC allies that join them in Hommlet (e.g. Otis, Spugnoir, etc). Back in the day, the PCs in my games *always* had hirelings, dogs, henchmen, or other NPCs of some sort with them. A group of 4 PCs might have 4-6 NPCs along. I know that became much less common in 2E and especially in 3E.