Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Raven Crowking]

The game includes divination spells.

When in doubt, use them.


RC

 

[Garthanos]

Only 3e, with its very steep level curve, makes this difficult -- in 1e, 2e, or (from what I understand) 4e, this shouldn't be a problem.

You do have to have characters hearty enough for this technique to have any ground (you do have it in 4e but I am not so sure about AD&D). Basically we are talking using combat at which they are failing ... as another form of communicating to the players their characters are outclassed too quick of permanent defeat is not useful.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yeah, thats pretty much my point about reading the DM's mind (or knowing their style, if you prefer). In your game, good play is deciphering the engravings and following the clues, in my game, good play is ignoring the engravings and using other information gathering methods. A player going from my table to yours or vice versa will result in what was previously good play becoming poor play.

Are you saying you are in fact one of those devious DMs that like fooling and pulling "gotchas" on the players?

My guiding principle is that while I will sometimes try to "tempt" players into making "unbalanced" or sub-optimal choices, I "reward" appropriate caution represented by reasonable information gathering given the circumstances, which is what I consider sound refereeing. I don't consider sound refereeing making sure that every potential combat encounter is "winnable" through conventional (combat) methods.

My campaign never reached the "gotcha" level that more "advanced" campaigns can reach (such as the Greyhawk campaign where the tricks Gary came up with were to challenge his expert players).

In short, "good play" or "poor play" aren't absolute player skills except where the players have full control over their situation. There are certainly aspects that carry over from one table to another, but I don't think its a simple player skill issue.

Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You do have to have characters hearty enough for this technique to have any ground (you do have it in 4e but I am not so sure about AD&D). Basically we are talking using combat at which they are failing ... as another form of communicating to the players their characters are outclassed too quick of permanent defeat is not useful.

And, yet, hundreds or more have managed to do just that.


RC

 

[Gimby]

The game includes divination spells.

When in doubt, use them.


RC

Absolutely. Thats included in "other information gathering methods".

Still though, its a matter of DM style as to whether or not they are useful in obtaining your objective and can be considered good play or not. They may simply confirm what you've already figured out, which can be seen as poor play due to wasting time and resources. They can be exactly what's needed, so would be good play. They may delay you sufficiently to cause wandering monsters to attack, which is clearly counterproductive. And so on.

*Requiring* class and level (and possibly already spent resource) constrained abilities comes back to the different limitations thing we discussed earlier. I don't think we're going to budge on that one though

 

[ExploderWizard]

Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.

This is certainly true.

This skill can be underdeveloped for several reasons:

1)The player is not invested enough in the game to care.

2) The DM refuses to reward thoughtful actions with any benefit.

3)The game system rewards character resource allocation over creative thought ( dice pounding solves all)

4)The player has experienced enough poorly run games that he/she just doesn't bother anymore


Not all of these are the fault of the player.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Good play" is defined, IMHO, by its results, and the players involved are the only one whose subjective opinions as to those results matter. Getting the results you were hoping for? That is good play. Not getting the results you were hoping for? Not so much good play. No more evidence is needed.

It should be noted, too, that good play in this context includes choosing a Game Master capable of providing a good game.

OTOH, it is true that what some people want is ego validation, and what they are hoping for is a GM who will run a game in which their decisions are always the right ones. Well, there is "good play" in this sort of game too, but it doesn't translate so well into "good play" when confronted by a more challenging game environment. It is important to know what it is you are after from a game to which so much time and energy is devoted, and to realize that sometimes what you want might change the nature of the game into something completely different.


RC

 

[Gimby]

Are you saying you are in fact one of those devious DMs that like fooling and pulling "gotchas" on the players?

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. How's your mind-reading these days?

My guiding principle is that while I will sometimes try to "tempt" players into making "unbalanced" or sub-optimal choices, I "reward" appropriate caution represented by reasonable information gathering given the circumstances, which is what I consider sound refereeing. I don't consider sound refereeing making sure that every potential combat encounter is "winnable" through conventional (combat) methods.

Yes, I'd agree, not every encounter should be winnable through direct conflict - its notable that this is pretty much the DM advice given in every DMG I've read.

The gotcha's I prefer though are ones where the players can figure it out, but if they don't they don't run into instant destruction - No "Forgot to cast Death Ward on everyone? Suprise Bodak!" more the Bullete situation described above. The TPK arises not from a single poor decision (which may or may not be clear to be poor) but either from repeated action in a clearly poor direction or clearly suicidal actions - "Yes, throwing yourself from a catapault resulted in your death, what were you thinking?". In that example though, if the answer was "Something like that bit in Robin Hood, you know, like the rest of the game has been run" then I, and not the players, am guilty of poor play.

But even then, what I think of as appropriate caution and rewards will differ from yours.

Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.

Information gathering as a broad category yes, actual implementation of that in relation to skills/spells/time/clues available I'd argue is very table dependant.

 

[Ariosto]

Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration?

I think you have implied that the answer is that the DM must unfairly have imposed upon the players. Are you not appealing to the specter of such hypothetical encounters as evidence for the necessity of ad hoc "encounter balancing" by the DM?

Others assume that the DM ought to set up a game such that players can make strategic choices -- and take the consequences. That's the kind of D&D game I like to play, and there have always been plenty of fellows with whom to do so.

The players are supposed to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.

Except that it would not be a case of impossibility! What the players should know, if it is the case, is that an open fight (as opposed perhaps to a carefully prepared ambush) is likely to go against them. If they don't know that -- which it is part of play to learn -- then they should know that they don't know. If they choose to gamble that the best defense is a good case of willful ignorance, then they are due whatever the dice decree. That could be a surprise victory for them.

That's one serious advantage of balanced encounters - the PCs can approach them in a variety of ways, rather than having some ways be instant death.

That is not in fact the logical dichotomy; that some ways are instant death does not mean that there are not a variety of viable approaches! In any case, advantage is -- in the nature of a game -- most customarily something for players to pursue, not to take for granted. The foundation that makes strategy possible is the fact that some ways are more advantageous than others.

Perhaps it is not clear to you that a basic assumption of the game is that the players choose their paths through the environment as much as you and I choose our courses through the real world.

That kind of game may not be to one's taste, but it is most certainly an actual game form admitting of actual balances.

Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.

Although my acquaintance with the game is fleeting, IIRC that is not precisely true -- as it would be in the case of, e.g., Snakes (or Chutes) and Ladders. Also, one might observe that chance plays a profound role especially in survival of a character to 2nd level. However, the point is well taken that AD&D was designed to put a premium on managing that chance factor by avoiding it as much as possible. That's a radically different aim than the dependence upon prescribed default probabilities that figures so prominently in, for instance, 4e.

 

[Ariosto]

In recent months, I have been frustrated as a player by the "encounter balance" routine.

The obvious corollary to making a "too hard" fight easier is what?

Why, making arbitrarily harder one that has turned out to be "too easy"!

As a game player, I prefer to have my strategies actually make decisive differences.