Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Plane Sailing]

You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war. This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.

I don't see that he is doing that all. Aristo isn't putting any value judgements on the different attitudes, merely noting that they typically exist and he finds himself on one side rather than another.

No denigration. No vitriol. No edition war.

Thanks

 

[Umbran]

This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.

In addition to what PS said - it really isn't possible to talk about what 1e has or has not out of context. We need to compare and contrast in order to have perspective.

 

[Khairn]

Hell no.

AD&D is a great game, and I enjoyed it when it met what I wanted in a game. But "balance", as we understand it today, certainly wasn't an accomplishment in its final design.

 

[MerricB]

I think EGG set out with balance in mind but went off of the rails with Unearthed Arcana.

Supplement I: Greyhawk, thank you very much! (I know diaglo agrees with me. )

Cheers!

 

[Skallgrim]

I'm not sure how so many people can vote "No" on balance unless you assume that the writer of the book was, in fact, crazy or a liar.

Since you specified that you were not asking whether the edition was balanced, but whether it was intended to be balanced, and EGG specifically says that game balance was a design consideration, either he was crazy (and saying things that had no relation to reality), or a liar (and deliberately spreading falsehood).

As many, many, many posters have said, it was a different type of balance that was intended, but clearly, unless you can somehow show that EGG is using the words "game balance" in a logically or factually incorrect way, I think it is blindingly obvious that game balance was intended.

I mean, clearly one can have different opinions on what is considered 'game balance', but if I say I'm going to make 'spicy meatballs', and the meatballs I make are what I consider spicy, then clearly, I have made the meatballs I set out to make. Maybe you might not consider them spicy, but it would be inaccurate to say that I, in fact, did not actually make spicy meatballs.


On the side topic of 'quick/slow' game balance progression (where wizards are balanced by being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels), this sort of game balance had one obvious problem (wizards dominated late stage games) and one less obvious problem. It did not adequately account for people starting a new character during the game. Either they started at a lower level than everyone else, and were substantially disadvantaged, or they started at around the same xp level as everyone else, and, depending on class choice, might not have to suffer through any levels of 'weaksauce' to get to their 'sweet spot'.

 

[Bullgrit]

You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war. This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.

Reading what I wrote after reading everyone's response shows me how I miscommunicated.

I wasn't meaning that Ariosto is trying to create an edition war. Rather, it seemed to me, that he was taking things that others have said as edition warring. (Wearing his heart on his sleeve.) It seemed, again, to me, that anything anyone said positive about D&D4 as an insult (a negative) to AD&D1.

Basically:
Someone says, "D&D4 has this good feature."

Ariosto responded with, "I don't want your D&D4. It's not better than AD&D1."

And then the whole:

People who love 1e and loath 4e have very different ends in mind, calling for different means, than people who love 4e and loath 1e.

He seems to think everyone has this mutually exclusive relationship between editions. If you love one, you must therefore hate the other. With this attitude, it's no wonder that anything positive said about one is taken as a negative about the other. Or anything negative said about one is taken as a postive for the other.

Saying, "I like X about D&D4," gets taken as "I hate AD&D1, and you are stupid for liking it." That's a little too sensitive. And "I dislike Y about AD&D1," gets taken as "I hate AD&D1, and you are stupid for liking it."

This attitude makes it very difficult to discuss anything about any edition.

Bullgrit

 

[Holy Bovine]

I certainly think 1E was intended to be as balanced as possible. I don't think, ultimately, that it succeeded (even by the standards of the time let alone modern standards). Of course this means, in no way whatsoever, that 1E is anything less than a heckuva a great game and one I would play or DM again in a flat minute.

 

[Garmorn]

Yes, it was intended to be balanced, but the point of reference for balance has shifted.

The primary point of reference for 1E and earlier editions appears to be the ongoing game.
2E's primary point of reference is the campaign.

3E's primary point of reference is the adventuring day.

4E's primary point of reference is the (usually combat) encounter.

Firelance has, once again, neatly summed things up, 3 or 4 posts above:In short, the intended balance has shifted from a macro level to a micro level; hand in hand with the general theme of the games' design becoming more and more about micro-management as time has gone on.

I won't be at all surprised if 5e uses the single combat round as its point of reference for balance.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, balance in 1e works vastly differently when looking at a 1-year 5-adventure low-level blast-through or a 10-year 50-adventure low-mid-high campaign - the longer and bigger the campaign, the more balanced the whole thing becomes...when looked at overall. Day-to-day balance? Who cares?

Lan-"still unbalanced after all these years"-efan

Firelance is right, but Lanefan response points out a view that seems to be common. I deleted an earlier post because until I read this tread also had this view. There is a solid reason for the gradual shift in how the characters/game are balanced. The only way to truly balance a game is to make sure it is balanced at the lowest level that every one is going to play the same.

The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level. The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length? This is also the weakness of 2e's balance problem. For 3e the period was a day with 4 combats but how many varied from that regularly? 4e is now geared to the lowest possible time frame an encounter. Long term balance is now more of the DM job.

Lots of us hated or did not think 1e was balanced not because of house rules but because of different campaign lengths/max levels different groups played to. This severely changed the dynamics of the game. It caused some to make lots of house rule (many were pretty bad) or use other means to fix the problem caused by the changed expectations.

Now I not saying 4e is perfect, or 1e is horrible, but for balance between players in power and spotlight I would not play in a pickup or short 1e game. Give me a really good DM who I know would run it until 20th and I will enjoy it. For quick pickup when stuck in an airport over night give me 4e.

 

[Votan]

The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level. The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length? This is also the weakness of 2e's balance problem. For 3e the period was a day with 4 combats but how many varied from that regularly? 4e is now geared to the lowest possible time frame an encounter. Long term balance is now more of the DM job.

I think that is also a modern change in how balance is seen; the DM has to put a lot more thought and effort into balancing 1st edition -- often over the course of an entire campaign.

I also think that the focus has shifted from "cool stories" to "character power" in a way that has not been 100% positive.

 

[MerricB]

The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level.

It's worth noting that the balancing of AD&D works much better if you don't play much past 10th level. Demihuman limits and all that.

Cheers!