Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Orius]

I'm not convinced by the argument that new DMs benefit from more hand-holding or systems to make it easier for them to run games well since, well, being a DM isn't exactly rocket science! Tens of thousands of people were running fun games of D&D back in the 70's and early 80's with what little support and advice was available back then.

I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit. We all know it's higher for them than for someone running a PC simply because they have more to do and more they need to keep track of.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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.

Yeah, definitely. I see 10th level as the high end of the scale, for AD&D. You could go beyond that, certainly, but most mortals did not. If you were around 10th level, you were "name" level -- the top of the pyramid. (See my level musing.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit.

Do more rules to cover more situations ease the learning curve?

 

[Ariosto]

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'.

As the game had no "late stage" except in terms of a particular character's career, that is actually most obviously not a problem to me. Likewise, everyone would be starting characters at low levels, as often as they started new characters -- which was not expected to be all at the same time. Gygax indeed suggested the deal of starting around some average level (with a random factor), for experienced players, and that would indeed be likely to alter the risk-reward balances that different classes present.

What of it? Players are not forced (except perhaps by incredibly unlucky rolls, offset by the chance of incredibly lucky ones) into playing any particular type. If everyone were presenting (say) a magic user, then one might take that as a clear market evaluation -- and create incentives to try other classes. If nobody picks a demi-human, then it's probably not a problem from Gygax's human-centric perspective; level limits were meant to make humans dominant at high levels.

The balance valued there is that you and I are both subject to the same dice-throw probabilities, and the same rules governing available options. It's a "level field" for players, not for characters.

 

[cattoy]

I think that the OP should end this poll and create a new one.

But first, decide and state in explicit terms what he means when he says

"designed for game balance"

because that phrase is so vague as to be undefinable.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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?

I think you misread Firelance - he was saying 'campaign level' as the primary model for 2e. 1e was primarily about the 'game'.

Mind you, the groups I played with had very successful and fun-filled 1e campaigns, both with characters below 10th level and with characters above 10th level.

In fact in many ways the charm of 1e campaigns was that it was expected that adventures would shift from 'mere' dungeon bashing to building castles and getting involved in a larger canvas on the world. Something I personally found much more interesting and fulfilling in terms of growth in the game.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

I agree with this observation.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit. We all know it's higher for them than for someone running a PC simply because they have more to do and more they need to keep track of.

Do more rules to cover more situations ease the learning curve?

Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.

More detail in a game certainly appeals to lots of people (the success of 3e and 4e is partially testament to that); however, this must have steepened the learning curve for playing the game just on the basis of there being more to read and digest!

Cheers

 

[Garmorn]

I think you misread Firelance - he was saying 'campaign level' as the primary model for 2e. 1e was primarily about the 'game'.

Mind you, the groups I played with had very successful and fun-filled 1e campaigns, both with characters below 10th level and with characters above 10th level.

In fact in many ways the charm of 1e campaigns was that it was expected that adventures would shift from 'mere' dungeon bashing to building castles and getting involved in a larger canvas on the world. Something I personally found much more interesting and fulfilling in terms of growth in the game.

Cheers

Yes but much of the balancing is still suppose to be spread out over a period of time. I not saying it was a bad approach for it time. Just that as the community grew more diverse it became less functional.

Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.

More detail in a game certainly appeals to lots of people (the success of 3e and 4e is partially testament to that); however, this must have steepened the learning curve for playing the game just on the basis of there being more to read and digest!

Cheers

Earlier editions had fewer rules true but they required more work, a deeper understanding of not only the rules, the why's and wherefore's of the rules. You had to be good at winging things, and making up your own rules.

The skills and talents need for that are in limited supply. The new approach opens up the position to more players.

So yes all of the rules prior to 3e edition where balanced but only if you had a DM with the right skill/talent combination. This is the combination the Gary had and taught. That is why my of the older gamers admire him so much. Lots of the new DM's and gamers are of a different style, skill and talent set and need the more detail rules. (I will admit the I can't create a good house rule with out months are even years of trying and generally come here when I need one.)

 

[Umbran]

Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.

Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e. The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems. 1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.

We are talking about "balance" here. It seems to me that the numeric balance in 3e and 4e is far more transparent than that in 1e, which should make learning what the DM has to add to keep things running smoothly easier.