Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[jdrakeh]

Other. I believe that there were several efforts directed at maintaining balance in AD&D/BD&D, but that there were also areas of those games completely unbalanced when compared to later editions of D&D.

 

[Ariosto]

I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits.

It depends, naturally, on the particulars of those low probabilities and major benefits.

An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that.

The x.p. bonus is the same 10% as for a score of 16, pretty minor before "name" level. The +3 to hit is like being 3 levels higher -- versus, what, eight levels for a straight 18 in 4e? The +6 to damage, though, is really hot stuff; even a magic sword is unlikely to match that.

Muscle Man still has a 50% chance of rolling 5 or fewer hit points if he has no constitution bonus. An m-u with a constitution bonus has a 25% chance of getting 5 or maybe 6.

Depending on method, your chance of rolling one or more notable bonuses varies -- but a fighter with a strength score of 8 (9 actually minimum to join the class) hacks and slashes as well as one with a 15. Either, with enough levels worth of hit points, can pretty much count on beating Muscle Man without magic and without breaking too much of a sweat. Of course, they are likely to acquire magic and henchmen and contacts along the way, and will certainly get better saving throws (as well as more than +3 over a 1st-level fighter's chance to hit).

That 18/00 really does not increase the chances of attaining even 2nd level by very much; damage dealt per round is not the chief factor! The odds are that Muscle Man, unless very well played, will meet an early end and the campaign -- much less the player's stable -- will not feature his ilk again for a long time.

Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll.

Few of those will survive the moment of their first meeting with a psionic monster ... which comes closer with each use of psychic powers (or certain related spells, one might note).

 

[Lanefan]

Firelance has, once again, neatly summed things up, 3 or 4 posts above:

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. ...

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

 

[billd91]

I voted yes because balance was clearly an element of 1e design. But if I were to make that decision again, I might focus more on the wording of the question and answered no. 1e wasn't designed for game balance. It was designed to provide a fantasy/swords and sorcery feel with game balance.

By comparison, 4e comes much closer to a game designed for game balance since that's the primary point of departure from previous editions.

And, yes, awesome post Firelance.

 

[Janx]

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?

except the problem is, some players did care. WotC cared. Which is why in 2000 when 3e came out (close enough to the 21st century) they focused on character balance.

In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight. THey don't remember that at 1st level they rocked compared to the other PCs. They only notice that now, they're PC is not in the spotlight, because the wizard is so much better and more important. And the elf fighter's the worst whiner, ever since he stopped leveling....

 

[Lanefan]

except the problem is, some players did care. WotC cared. Which is why in 2000 when 3e came out (close enough to the 21st century) they focused on character balance.

In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight. ....

Which to me defines the problem: many players today are unwilling (or, less willing) to accept that there will be times they will be the star, and other times they'll have to suck it up and let someone else be the star; and that over the long run these things will - or at least should - vaguely average out. And I'll stop there, for fear of this turning into a full-ride rant.

Lanefan

 

[Janx]

Which to me defines the problem: many players today are unwilling (or, less willing) to accept that there will be times they will be the star, and other times they'll have to suck it up and let someone else be the star; and that over the long run these things will - or at least should - vaguely average out. And I'll stop there, for fear of this turning into a full-ride rant.

Lanefan

These players were dissatisfied because for many, that time to shine never came. The campaign didn't last long enough. Or if it did, once your class passed the cool point, it meant you were second fiddle forever.

long term campaigns were the exception, not the rule. Thus, it didn't reach its full effectiveness.

Plus, obviously, I'm a fan of character balance. It pays off in nearly every session.

 

[Hussar]

Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible. Balance is focused on the mechanical aspects of adjudication. AD&D balance is more along the line of "meta-balance" - balance in the sense of the role's ability placed within the context of the game world's pretend environment.

joe b.

I would point out that this form of game balance is perhaps a D&D version of the idea. Other games are not so combat centric in their conception and thus have less focus on mechanical adjudication.

 

[MerricB]

or a score of 16, pretty minor before "name" level. The +3 to hit is like being 3 levels higher -- versus, what, eight levels for a straight 18 in 4e?

Erm - what 4e fighter will have a 10 Strength? The difference in 4E is likely to be 1 or 2 points at most.

AD&D has a lot of features that were thought a good idea at the time, but were never properly developed. What you really have is Gary (primarily) working on the balance of the game from a gut feeling of how it should work informed by all the sessions he'd run. Of course, how he was running it was quite different to how a lot of people actually ran the game.

Consider his chapter on "Time" in the DMG. All of that is terribly important if you're playing on a near daily basis with different groups of players in the same campaign (and sometimes with multiple PCs as well!) However, time management is rather less important for games that run 1/week with the same players and DM each session - which was far more common in my experience (early 80s onwards).

Was AD&D designed with balance in mind? Absolutely it was. Was it designed around balance in combat? Well, not entirely, but it's there. The 1st level magic-user will win a combat on his own using sleep, but otherwise be a lesser combatant using daggers, darts or oil. (The thief is the one class that isn't really designed around balance in combat).

However, those 1st level experiences aren't meant to drag on. The speed of combat as well as XP for treasure will mean that the 1st level magic-user reaches 2nd and 3rd level fairly rapidly. (AD&D games that have PCs stay at 1st level for years are terribly outside the pale).

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight. THey don't remember that at 1st level they rocked compared to the other PCs. They only notice that now, they're PC is not in the spotlight, because the wizard is so much better and more important. And the elf fighter's the worst whiner, ever since he stopped leveling....

If the adventure is really so terribly much better suited to magicians, then perhaps one would have sense enough to join it in a magician's persona instead? For that matter, why is the first magician sharing the glory and plunder with a fighter who can't pull his weight? And why did the elf leave home, if lack of leveling is such a big deal to him -- unless the treasure he seeks is an answer to that problem? (Better he should have multi-classed as a thief to start with, but perhaps such flighty lack of foresight explains his faring yet among men.)

Really, I don't recall any such situation of a 20th-level Lord being less fun to play than an 18th-level Wizard -- although past 9th-11th level, D&D characters in general become increasingly less my cup of tea.

If it were a problem, then the whole business of ensuring that your magician advances in lockstep with my fighter would exacerbate it. It is certainly obscure to me how 3e's "give away the store" program for spell-casters was supposed to make things better!