Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

Interesting. Back in the day I used to proclaim that AD&D was a superior system because it could be and was adapted to different styles of play and particularly to different genres - post apocalypse sci-fi, western, gothic/fantasy horror, modern spy stuff, etc. Other game systems had to be built SPECIFICALLY to handle only one genre at a time or else had to be built as disgustingly flavorless, generic rules in order to BE adaptable to a variety of genres.

I don't think I was correct in saying that anymore, but AD&D can be and IS STILL played according to rules-as-written. The fact that so many people typically don't and still enjoy the hell out of it proves that AD&D does NOT typically become a train wreck when you depart from its rules.

 

[Nikosandros]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck.

I've fiddled and I keep fiddling a lot with AD&D. Never had a train wreck, but rather plenty of very enjoyable experiences that make AD&D one of my favorite RPGs.

 

[Votan]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

I also think that 3E was templated so it was easy to introduce new classes whereas 1E required building new classes from the ground up (so things like the XP tables had to be redeisgned and balanced for each class).

Both editions had issues when too many new spells were introduced.

 

[Lanefan]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

From my own experience, you've got those backwards.

Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules. Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game. Mine has lasted me 25 years.

Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult. 3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.

That's not to say it couldn't be changed at all. You just had to be much more careful with what you were doing.

Also, of late there has developed a "thriving industry based on creating variations" of 1e as well...look at all the retro-clones...so that point, if ever relevant at all, has become moot.

Lanefan

 

[Garmorn]

I would have thought the double standard obvious.

The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust": A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.

Unless, of course, you imagine that a publshed book is somehow necessarily better than the binder of houserules at creating the sort of campaign one might want, or that selecting between those published options does not somehow constitute a plethora of houserules.

RC

I would have to agree, this argument is a non starter. From what I have learned is that the problem was not in the balance or in the approach but in the fact that lots of people had to change 1e & 2e to fit their gaming still. This was not true of 3.x because there was already a D&D version that fit their style.

A contributing factor is that 3.x at least gave you some ideal how the game was meant to be balanced while 1e & 2e did not give most players a clear of picture of how and why it was balanced the way it was. Add to this the continue growth of knowledge by the experienced players and DMs along with the producers on how to make the rules work gave the impression that the earlier versions where just thrown together, or where bad or did not work. Ect. Lots of the ads I remember about other games claimed/hinted that they where superior to AD&D, now they talk about be more suited to their genren or a different play style ect.

There has been a radical change in the overall gaming community because it has grown past a very small nich to a large more robush number of like minded groups that have basic concept of RPGs in common.

 

[Ariosto]

wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure

That's a curious difference. In 1e, slow advancement is -- by the standard rule -- a product of little treasure.

That risk-reward balance is probably the most fundamental in the game. You can go safe and slow, or take high casualties (even 50% per expedition, maybe) and have the survivors rocket through the ranks.

Gary Gygax and Tim Kask quite often took to task the "Monty Haul" and "Killer" DMs. Despite the gold-piece values in the DMG, Gygax at least once stated that magic items should "almost never" be for sale.

Gary was especially concerned about too easy and rapid piling up of power. He stated his worry that it was most likely to lead to quick boredom, as people felt that they had exhausted the game's most interesting possibilities.

One problem was that the game really had not been designed or tested for very high levels. Players in the Greyhawk campaign mostly retired their characters ca. 12th-14th level, and (IIRC) Gary said that his and Rob's (and Ernie's?) most famous ones were exceptional but got only up to 16th. That would mean, for instance, no PC m-us running around with 9th-level spells.

So, if you pressed on past that point you were "on your own". Even before that point, Gygax left an awful lot of stuff up to the DM. How long does ghoul paralysis last? Spell and magic-item descriptions often require careful adjudication, what might constitute "abuse" depending greatly on the particular campaign. There's a lot of practice along the way, both for players and for DMs, in effectively taking over responsibility for creating their own game.

In a sense, the "Advanced" books might be characterized as basic training for the original game -- which offered much less "hand holding" and prescriptive or proscriptive Words From On High but was addressed to peers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

From my own experience, you've got those backwards.

Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules. Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game. Mine has lasted me 25 years.

Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult. 3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.

That's not to say it couldn't be changed at all. You just had to be much more careful with what you were doing.

Quoted for truth. This is true for my direct experience and observations too, also taking into account reports of dozens and dozens of games during the 70's and 80's.

Cheers

 

[Garmorn]

From my own experience, you've got those backwards.

Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules. Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game. Mine has lasted me 25 years.

Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult. 3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.

Lanefan

Just to put a different spin on things. My experience is again different from both of the above.

For all of the editions I have played, the only games that did not become train wrecks where the house rules where keep to the minimum to be playable. More for 1e than 2e which had more the 3.x but still very few. Things like dropping level/class restrictions and some of the more obscure rules.

Every DM/GM that has tried to change a system even a little to fit his world ended up with a train wreck and new campaign.

 

[pawsplay]

I would have thought the double standard obvious.

The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust": A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.

People are allowed to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The evidence is not the same by any reasonable standard, since each game has its own completely unique history. You are basically claiming that a handful of raw ground beef and a McDonald's Menu are the same because a lot of rules and variants are used to create the hamburger you desire. Not even close.

Sometimes, when conclusions look "obvious" it's because we've set our minds before looking at the evidence.

 

[keterys]

Sometimes, when conclusions look "obvious" it's because we've set our minds before looking at the evidence.

So true.