Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3267749" data-attributes="member: 172">At the same time, I feel that in 1e, &quot;balance&quot; was a concept in its infancy, and several approaches were taken that, in retrospect, were shown not to work:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for <s>a hamburger</s> some kewl powers today&quot; syndrome of balancing demihumans. When, in truth, a large segment of the D&amp;D populace testifies they never played D&amp;D past 9th level.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;kewl powers for bad attitudes&quot; design philosophy behind the Barbarian and Cavalier. The upshot is that you actually rewarded wince-worthy behavior that other character types were not rewarded for. This was one of the early examples of trying to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disads, a folly games like GURPS went on to replicate, and many or most designers now recognize as being problematic.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;kewl powers lottery&quot; that was 1e psionics.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;kewl stuff hidden in obscure rules&quot; effect that came with the likes of odd but oft time very effective if you knew how to master them rules like dual classing, bards, speed factors, two weapon fighting, and pummeling rules.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;reward power with more power&quot; effect of the way powerful classes were supposedly &quot;balanced&quot; by having stringent entry requirements. The result with a lucky (or twinky) player would invariably be the ones with the most powerful character classes.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The UA races. Free power on a silver platter.</li>
</ul>Hindsight is 20/20 now, and even back then, many DMs recognized the problems (to the first person wanting to reply how they never allowed psionics/UA/etc.: I rest my case). Though you can still dig out combos, we've avoided most problems like power lotteries and powers-for-roleplay disads, which are more blatant problems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 3267749, member: 172"] At the same time, I feel that in 1e, "balance" was a concept in its infancy, and several approaches were taken that, in retrospect, were shown not to work: [list] [*]The "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for [s]a hamburger[/s] [i]some kewl powers[/i] today" syndrome of balancing demihumans. When, in truth, a large segment of the D&D populace testifies they never played D&D past 9th level. [*]The "kewl powers for bad attitudes" design philosophy behind the Barbarian and Cavalier. The upshot is that you actually rewarded wince-worthy behavior that other character types were not rewarded for. This was one of the early examples of trying to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disads, a folly games like GURPS went on to replicate, and many or most designers now recognize as being problematic. [*]The "kewl powers lottery" that was 1e psionics. [*]The "kewl stuff hidden in obscure rules" effect that came with the likes of odd but oft time very effective if you knew how to master them rules like dual classing, bards, speed factors, two weapon fighting, and pummeling rules. [*]The "reward power with more power" effect of the way powerful classes were supposedly "balanced" by having stringent entry requirements. The result with a lucky (or twinky) player would invariably be the ones with the most powerful character classes. [*]The UA races. Free power on a silver platter. [/list] Hindsight is 20/20 now, and even back then, many DMs recognized the problems (to the first person wanting to reply how they never allowed psionics/UA/etc.: I rest my case). Though you can still dig out combos, we've avoided most problems like power lotteries and powers-for-roleplay disads, which are more blatant problems. [/QUOTE]

Verification