-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
That similar cases can exist over the course of 60, 100, or 1,000 years does not mean that all cases are similar.
EDIT: I am not familiar with Settlers. Does every player start with the same "mechanics"? If so, then the idea of game balance is the same....all players start with equal resources. If not, then the idea of game balance has shifted.
When I see that definition that defines "game balance" so as to be inclusive of the attempted balances of both Mr. Gygax and WotC, I will be happy to rethink my position.
EDIT: I am not familiar with Settlers. Does every player start with the same "mechanics"? If so, then the idea of game balance is the same....all players start with equal resources. If not, then the idea of game balance has shifted.
When I see that definition that defines "game balance" so as to be inclusive of the attempted balances of both Mr. Gygax and WotC, I will be happy to rethink my position.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
At this point, 54% of the responders said "No" despite the author's stated attempts at balance. Clearly, more than half of the responders don't believe that what Gygax meant by a "balanced game" is what is meant by a "balanced game" now.
Scribble
First Post
Reread my post maybe? I wasn't arguing the method used to be an "animal" was the same (I didn't say chicken = bear.) Only that the end result was the same goal ( a balanced animal/game.)
Maybe it would help if you defined what you consider Gygax's definition for balance?
As it stands I feel like you'd confusing the method for the definition, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Scribble
First Post
Or that over half the respondents feel that he failed to achieve it.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Well, how about:
Game balance means that no class or skill is substantially more powerful or useful than another, from creation on through progression to higher level. Challenges (monsters and problems) should be appropriate for the characters facing them.
Game balance is a goal, not a method.
Bullgrit
Hussar
Legend
I'll admit I voted no.
But, perhaps for a slightly different reading. I read the question to mean, was the balance that 1e achieved arrived at by design. In other words, I took the design part of the question to be important.
It's pretty much true that all games are trying for some form of balance. That's pretty much necessary for most games. Allowing me to start with three aces in Poker is an interesting variant, but, not very balanced. However, giving you ten to one odds if you win, suddenly shifts things back again.
However, my thinking is that AD&D was not designed in the sense that we mean it with games today. Most of the mechanics were back of the envelope style calculations with an awful lot of gut feeling producing many of the numbers. At least, that's the sense that I get from AD&D. There was no design team to speak of, no rigorous playtesting, very little in the way of games theory being employed and so on.
So, how much can you really call 1e "designed"? To me, design implies a pretty formal, scientific process. I got the sense that 1e mechanics were arrived at more or less by trial and error and "close enough" was generally acceptable.
But, perhaps for a slightly different reading. I read the question to mean, was the balance that 1e achieved arrived at by design. In other words, I took the design part of the question to be important.
It's pretty much true that all games are trying for some form of balance. That's pretty much necessary for most games. Allowing me to start with three aces in Poker is an interesting variant, but, not very balanced. However, giving you ten to one odds if you win, suddenly shifts things back again.
However, my thinking is that AD&D was not designed in the sense that we mean it with games today. Most of the mechanics were back of the envelope style calculations with an awful lot of gut feeling producing many of the numbers. At least, that's the sense that I get from AD&D. There was no design team to speak of, no rigorous playtesting, very little in the way of games theory being employed and so on.
So, how much can you really call 1e "designed"? To me, design implies a pretty formal, scientific process. I got the sense that 1e mechanics were arrived at more or less by trial and error and "close enough" was generally acceptable.
Scribble
First Post
Yep.
