Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Dausuul]

Don't confuse the lack of a clearly stated baseline from the lack of an actual baseline.

Gygax, et al., probably had some pretty solid assumptions of how the game was supposed to run, at least in some ways. But, they were still pretty new at writing books for such a complex game. The problem with being the first to do something is that you make some mistakes - they probably didn't yet fully understand the value of clearly stated assumptions to someone who didn't learn the game from them.

Heck, I think that value was only really recognized fairly recently. 1e, 2e, early White Wolf, and most other games from the 1980s and much of the 1990s lack clear statements of their baselines.

If a baseline falls in the dungeon, and no one reads it, was it unbalanced?

We can certainly guess that Gygax had ideas about how the game was expected to play out. In fact, given that he himself ran games, he surely did. But were those ideas shared by his fellow designers? I rather doubt it; I suspect every designer at TSR had his or her own concept of how D&D was played.

In any case, since he didn't write those ideas in the books, we can only speculate as to what they were at any given point (they undoubtedly changed over time) and how well the game would or would not work if you followed them. I'm not criticizing Gygax for being a pioneer--as you say, everybody was new to RPGs back then, and it's no shame on Gygax for not spelling out his underlying assumptions. But he didn't spell them out.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But when you have to fall back on "inference from the DMG," you're admitting that the game has no clear set of core assumptions--because inference is totally subjective. I played in a number of different groups back in the day, and they all drew inferences from the DMG and the PHB about how the game was supposed to work, and they all thought their inferences were obvious and logical. And every dang table was playing the game a different way.

The strange thing is, one of the main goals of AD&D was to reduce the differences between D&D play groups, to get everyone playing in, more or less, the same way. I don't think Gary achieved the clarity he sought in AD&D, nonetheless that was the aim.

Where D&D is a very loose, open framework
around which highly imaginative Dungeon Masters can construct what
amounts to a set of rules and game of their own choosing, AD&D is a
much tighter and more structured game system.

Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said
so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative,
because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D
has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between
the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to
area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there
is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how
best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity
which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of
D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question
in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There
is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral
portions of the game will obviously make it something else.

While D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells,
43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash
from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed.
Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is
clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging,
even if AD&D undergoes change at some future date.

- The inimitable Gary Gygax, in Dragon #26

This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades.

Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system.

- 1e DMG Preface

 

[green slime]

Bah!

Discussions about "Balance"....

The only thing important in a game is, if the participants are having fun. Which is basically provided by the DM. Whether the characters are "balanced" or not is completely irrelevant. The characters could be balanced out the wazoo, and the game be boring as hell.... Is that Epic fail or what?

The DM challenges the party, and everyone participates in the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bah!

Discussions about "Balance"....

The only thing important in a game is, if the participants are having fun. Which is basically provided by the DM. Whether the characters are "balanced" or not is completely irrelevant. The characters could be balanced out the wazoo, and the game be boring as hell.... Is that Epic fail or what?

The DM challenges the party, and everyone participates in the game.

Bolded- my only nit pick. Fun should be provided by ALL participants to all other participants. If everyone plays to to have fun and see to it that others are having fun too, balance can be forgotten. The DM needs to have fun like everyone else.

 

[Votan]

And similarly, a wizard in older editions of D&D is the quarterback of an adventuring party.

In my experience (although play variability with AD&D is large) this is correct but in a positive sense. The quarterback is crucual but casting a spell during combat is always a nerve-wracking experience (due to the spell interuption rules and never knowing what your initiative order is going to be). Without a good support team, the wizard is in deep trouble.

In later editions (with defensive casting, tricks to get far more hit points plus a better AC and more spells) a wizard is more able to pull off being a solo superstar. Plus, saves become harder to make as a wizard optimizes aroudn them whereas in 2E damage was usually the way to go. Spell resistance was easier to avoid and so forth.

That is, in my opinion, the key to 2E balance. Nobody else can learn the Theif skills. The fighter was really tough (relative to the other classes) on both hit points and saves (notice the truncation of constitution bonuses to hit points for non-fighters). The cleric and the wizard have separate spell lists that (at least in 1E AD&D) have a modest amount of overlap.

It is hard to succeed without a party and teamwork is key to success. In 3rd edition this is less true with high level spellcaster designed to be survivable.

 

[Umbran]

The only thing important in a game is, if the participants are having fun. Which is basically provided by the DM.

Yes. So, do you use game rules?

In theory, a GM could provide fun with no rules at all. The rules aren't strictly necessary - the rules are a framework, a tool to use in providing fun, to make it lots easier. Since most of us are using some set of rules, we can reasonably assume we tend to find the job easier to do with some tools to help us.

Balance is a quality some folks find make a better framework, an improvement in the tool for what they want to do.

Whether the characters are "balanced" or not is completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you, perhaps. Maybe some other GMs find it takes a lot more work to provide fun with a notably unbalanced game. If you don't have the need, and don't run into the problems, well, maybe you should consider counting your blessings.

 

[green slime]

People get hung up on discussions of "balance", and lose sight of what is important.

Fun.

Because alot of what is discussed in forums about "balance" really is very minor details indeed. The level of balance sought in these forums at times borders on the inane.

If a party can consist 5th - 8th level characters, (in any edition (even 4th...)) and everyone has fun, where is the problem?

 

[Doug McCrae]

People get hung up on discussions of "balance", and lose sight of what is important.

Fun.

Because alot of what is discussed in forums about "balance" really is very minor details indeed. The level of balance sought in these forums at times borders on the inane.

If a party can consist 5th - 8th level characters, (in any edition (even 4th...)) and everyone has fun, where is the problem?

For some people, such as myself, balance is what makes the game fun. Or at least, it's a very important factor.

Just as for others, the simulation of a secondary world, verisimilitude, is what makes the game appealing, while for yet another group the rpg itself is secondary, what's important is the opportunity to spend time with one's friends, the social aspect.

From your perspective we're "thinking too hard about balance" just as, from my perspective, some people think too hard about verisimilitude.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

If a party can consist 5th - 8th level characters, (in any edition (even 4th...)) and everyone has fun, where is the problem?

The problem is how to achieve this.
It isn't impossible and maybe very easy , when being with your friends and listening to a good story is the only goal.
But if you also want to affect the story and be meaningful to it, it becomes harder. The player of 5th level fighter will maybe have fun at the diplomatic banquet, but if the skills and abilities are used as said in the rulebook, the talk of the 8th level bard will affect the outcome more. (at least in 3+)
The 5th level rogue who invested many skill points (in 3+, or thief skills before) in open locks will not feel doing something meaningful standing next to the 8th level wizard with his knock wand...

 

[Aus_Snow]

AD&D 1e PHB, p. 6:

"Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance."

. . . and p. 7:

"The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game."

Game balance is not some passing fad, nor a new concern, by any means.

That was simply the very first "old skool" D&D book to hand. Given time, I'm sure there would be a veritable flood of balance-related quotes available. But perhaps those will serve, to illustrate the point.


edit: Oops - I totally missed the Gygax chapter and verse, upthread. Hopefully, there's no overlap.