Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Scribble]

All through 3e (which I really like BTW) I pointed out that it suffers from high coupling of its systems. 1e was in many ways a more practical design with high cohesion and low coupling between its subsystems - there were no knock-on effects from changing one subsystem.

It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
Cheers

Eh... I don't know if I agree with this. I think those effects occur, they're just not as easy to spot.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Eh... I don't know if I agree with this. I think those effects occur, they're just not as easy to spot.

I think its fairly accurate. For example,take the the unarmed combat system. We used a Dragon article instead of the stuff from the DMG. There were no feats taken that were invalidated by doing this. Subsystems could compliment other areas of the rules without invalidating those rules should they not be used.

Lets take a simple thing like initiative and change that around. In 1E it wasn't that big a deal. If we decide to replace the turn based system in 3E with a simple d6 then we invalidate feats, have to deal with swift actions, etc. If we do the same with 4E the whole system crashes because everything is tied to someones turn.

 

[Sonny]

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

Cheers!

EDIT: Got the wrong quote at first. I are dumb. Sorry


I think that it's just the nature of supplements in general. power creep was definitely a problem in the later stages of 1e, but they were much worse in the later stages of 2e. Not to mention 3rd edition also had this problem. And I have no doubt that they'll be some horribly balanced classes/races for 4e too.

I think Gygax did try to keep things balanced, but they often took a back seat to what was "perceived" as being fun*.





*Keep in mind, I'm not saying that older editions were more about fun and that 3rd and 4th are all about balance. It's just that Gygax (like everyone)
had his own idea of what made things more enjoyable and that perfect balance between all classes were not necessary to achieve that end.

 

[Scribble]

I think its fairly accurate. For example,take the the unarmed combat system. We used a Dragon article instead of the stuff from the DMG. There were no feats taken that were invalidated by doing this. Subsystems could compliment other areas of the rules without invalidating those rules should they not be used.

Lets take a simple thing like initiative and change that around. In 1E it wasn't that big a deal. If we decide to replace the turn based system in 3E with a simple d6 then we invalidate feats, have to deal with swift actions, etc. If we do the same with 4E the whole system crashes because everything is tied to someones turn.

Sure the later editions make use of the balance idea by directly tying options to other rules, but that just makes the balance issues do to changes more apparent, it doesn't create them.

Take the 1e wizard for example. Give him access to more spells per day, more weapons and armor, and you honestly think it won't effect the balance of the system?

Give the fighter a random percentage chance to pick pockets, and you don't think it will effect the thief at all?

Changes will still effect various "sub systems" in the game- it's just unless you're watching the math you won't notice them as easily.

If you're ok with that, and find it more fun- cool.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In 3rd, the DM always has the problem of Feats to think about. Any attempt to change procedures can invalidate one or more of the PCs carefully chosen Feats. For instance, giving any player a chance to hit multiple opponents (with severe penalties), because it would be dramatically appropriate, will invalidate the Cleave feat. Trying to do without Attacks of Opportunity will invalidate a host of Feats that employ them. Because WOTC interconnects all its rules for D&D, changing any rule on the fly will always have unexpected effects.

Feats are just a subset of PC abilities. Changing any procedure that interacts with a PC ability is going to have an effect on the PCs that possess that ability, in any edition and, indeed, any roleplaying game.

For example, in 1e, multiplying casting times by ten is going to impact majorly on the spellcasting classes, particularly magic-users. Allowing any character to climb walls, hide in shadows or move silently is going to nerf thieves. Changing the surprise rules is going to affect the classes and races that get a bonus to surprise. And so on.

It's easier to change a feat than it is to change class or race so, if this is a problem, then it's actually more of a problem in a game where all PC abilities are dependent on these two factors.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
Cheers

There are many dependencies in 1e. For instance, lots of monster abilities are based on spells. If I change the spell then the monster ability also changes, which may be unintended. If I get rid of levels or classes or hit points (not unreasonable, as many rpgs do exactly this) then many other rules are affected.

We just don't see these dependencies because it's very rare to want to change such a basic element of the rules.

I think the reason the dependencies in 3e are more visible is because a lot of people wanted to make 3e more like earlier editions of D&D by removing skill points, feats and attacks of opportunity, and found this to be tricky. Personally I think it's relatively easy to remove the last two. The first, skill points, are harder because they are significant for several character classes, but by varying degrees.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Any set of rules composed of discrete sub-systems will be harder to learn than one with a single, unified system. AD&D is not easy to learn. But the thing is, you don't need to learn the rules in order to participate. And it doesn't matter if you get the rules wrong. This is true of all rpgs.

 

[Ariosto]

A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.

YMMV, I guess, but really -- not in ruling on the minutia with which the WotC rule-books are preoccupied. The many pages devoted to peculiarities of a particular, notably complex, combat game are simply not relevant. Feats and skill ratings? Ditto. Trivia about climbing free-standing knotted ropes versus un-knotted ropes next to walls, and so on ... just never really made anything like that difference in any other RPG I have ever played.

Again, we're dealing with different games. When it's up to the players to choose their path through the big decision-space of a sprawling dungeon, that's a different situation from the DM presenting the next "encounter" on a program.

When the expectation is of a challenge that should be hard to beat, one that is likely to remove from play a few 1st-level characters (providing the opportunity to roll up new ones!), with several expeditions in a sitting ... maybe that's by design a different kind of game?

I do not recall its being especially hard for interested parties to pick up, although the DM's job was certainly at the high end of the contemporary scale of complexity -- not for game mechanics, but for the scope of the concern (an imaginary "world"). With 3e and 4e, we have gone completely off a scale calibrated to such relative trifles as advanced-game Anzio, even though the "world" is no greater.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

When I look at the books, and at actual play, I do not see that dichotomy. This looks to me like an "urban legend" kind of thing that "everyone knows" because "everyone says".

But the thing is, you hardly need to know any of the rules in order to start playing. And you don't need to get the rules right. This is true of all rpgs.

But in the real world, it is more true of some -- and more rules are more rules to get wrong. "We're just going to ignore all those rules" tends not to go over well with the players of certain games I have seen ... unless you're playing Monty Hall (and maybe not then).

It makes sense, doesn't it? If they really wanted to play a rules-light game, then they could do just that -- and without spending hundreds of dollars!

The grappling rules in the 1st ed. DMG are about as tiresome as those in 3e, but who avoids grappling to avoid using the rules? AD&D players who don't like 'em routinely and casually just ignore 'em -- if they are aware of them in the first place -- and go with whatever works for them. My impression is that most 3e players seem to have some strong incentive not to do that.

No Attacks of Opportunity: How many feats and other "build" factors would that screw up? How long does it take just to look up and add up the answer to that question?

As to balance, it looks to me as if bigger systems are buggier systems.

And if the DM dismisses it, then how is a player to get his money's worth from Munchkin Might II? I think that is a bit different from

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of an honorable death.

 

[Orius]

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.

I think the real difference is that there's more details in 3 and 4e than in earlier games with skills, feats, etc. Earlier editions didn't have that, though there were proficiencies in 2e, and IIRC the Basic game had a skill system somewhere. But where in 3e had standardized the d20 roll where high rolls were good and low rolls weren't, earlier editions had situations where high rolls were good for somethings and bad for others.

Though another problem is when 1e was rolled out, the game was set up into D&D and AD&D. New players were to start with D&D and move up into AD&D if they wanted to, and the systems were more compatible. But then when D&D branched out into BECMI, two seperate rule sets developed, and during the 2e days, D&D was taken off the market, leaving only the more complex AD&D. That was the situation when I started playing. I didn't have too many problems learning how to DM, but I can see how some new players at that time (a period of about 5-6 years) would have struggled. When 3e was released, it was an extention of the 2e rules, but some of the design decisions must have been influenced by the fact that it was the only D&D game on the market, and needs to be accessible to new players. The same considerations were made with 4e as well.

I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players. In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve. They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules. But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.

...

Sure, the DM has more power and more leeway to simply make things up. But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle. Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.

A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game. A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.

Yeah, this was the point I was trying to make. The DM doesn't just have to learn the rules, he has to learn how to run the game. Running the game is something that needs to be learned by experience. The DMG gives some advice, but naturally has never been big enough in any edition to cover every situation a DM is going to face. That's were Dragon came in in the old days, and now we have internet forums where DMs can get advice, learn refereeing tips and so on. Even then, sometimes a DM just has to run the game to learn what needs to be done. The old Basic game kept things simpler for the DM as well. However when it got to the point during 2e when AD&D was the only version of the game, new DMs had nothing but a DMG that offered a lot of vague advice and encouraged them to do what they felt was best. As a relatively new DM, that certainly didn't help me much. I was never sure for example what magic items weren't too powerful, how much treasure to give out, how powerful a monster was compared to the party, etc. The 3e rules had some guidelines in place, although imperfect in spots, but it did give me a better idea of what to use.

Now I'm just talking about inexperienced DMs here. When it's a case of a crappy DM, it's going to be a pretty crappy game no matter what edition is used. The only real advantage to post-AD&D rules in this situation is that the DM may not wreck the game as spectacularly as he might have done in the past. That's not a guarantee though, rather that crappy DMing just has a more uniform result.