Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[the Jester]

Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.

Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)

Patch notes:
Fixed persistent bug occasionally leading to play without die rolls

Replaced the only 2 interesting magic items with appropriate drek

Fixed bug which allowed class X to produce 4.5 more dpr than class Y when activating [up,down,shift,shift,alt]

Watch for build 4.013223 next week.

What does this have to do with anything?

Thanks for the threadcrap. Why don't you save the edition wars crap for some other forum where it's acceptable or encouraged, instead of explicitly against the rules?

That said, those who are arguing that anything that challenges player skill is against the rules in 4e simply hasn't played it under a good dm.

 

[Hussar]

I can dig that, having had a similar response as a knee-jerk reaction once upon a time. Taking it in fuller context, I see the good sense -- but it is very much a contextual matter. If indeed one has nothing to do with "the game as a whole", then that is disposed of in a moment, eh? If your campaign is identical with this or that set of participants, then there may indeed be no distinction (especially if one plans for the campaign to have a short life in any case).

Well, you can brush it off as knee jerk reactionism if you like. I don't. 1e sets up a very pyramidal structure with the Dm at the top and the players at the bottom. This is certainly one way to structure things, but hardly the only way. And, it depends on how long you consider to be a "short life". I consider an 18-24 month campaign to be pretty successful.

Although I do stand in awe of those who manage to have multi-year campaigns. I would not base my game on the assumption that we'll all be playing together ten years from now.

To me, the reality is that groups change membership pretty often. Every couple of years for the most part. I think it shows Gygax's own assumptions that groups would be much longer lived that leads him to put the game first. If your group is going to game together for ten years, then you better get that game nailed down for that group.

OTOH, if your group will only survive about two or three years, then the game better work out of the box.

 

[Ariosto]

But there are loads of minutia in D&D combat. just very very few that allow choices in fight itself ...

What, pray tell, is your basis for comparison? Certainly you are free to add as much as you like -- the fundamental reason that it seems odd to speak of not "allowing choices" -- but all the bells and whistles in the PHB and DMG are hardly on par with the detailed, blow-by-blow mechanics in contemporary games to which Gygax was pointedly referring. None of those that come to my mind hold a candle in complexity to WotC-D&D.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, you can brush it off as knee jerk reactionism if you like.

Of course I can; I am the expert on my own response, which was the sole subject of that statement.

I will repeat that, so that there should be no excuse for misrepresenting my words: the only knee-jerk reaction to which I referred was my own.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Did you really need to bring edition warring into this?


I should also point out that regardless of how well or poorly 4e balances, is irrelavent to the conversation at hand.

What does this have to do with anything?

Thanks for the threadcrap. Why don't you save the edition wars crap for some other forum where it's acceptable or encouraged, instead of explicitly against the rules?

That said, those who are arguing that anything that challenges player skill is against the rules in 4e simply hasn't played it under a good dm.

It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching". His words.

As a DM of a 4E campaign currently running I can say that challenging the player is far from impossible. My adventures feature such challenges quite often. They are not a part of the game as presented but they can included in a campaign anyway.

 

[Ariosto]

Here is my understanding of those priorities:

The game as a whole: How does one represent the hobby as an emissary for it in the wider world? Some who took the title of Dungeon Master brought disrepute, by association, upon far more than themselves.

Your campaign: As Hussar mentioned, "the reality is that groups change membership pretty often". It is thus not conducive to a campaign's longevity to cater too much to particular players. Favoritism for one over another is perhaps an obvious mis-step, but the more general error of Monty Haul-ism was Gygax's perennial target. Players who get too much treasure and level advancement for too little challenge tend quickly to tire of the exercise, and that is one way to do disservice to "the game as a whole".

Gygax thus saw the continuation of the game as a whole as an appealing pastime, and the individual DM's campaign as an appealing venue for participating in it, as contributing to the greater benefit of a growing number of D&D players and potential players.

The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to become no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither.

 

[Hussar]

It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching". His words.

As a DM of a 4E campaign currently running I can say that challenging the player is far from impossible. My adventures feature such challenges quite often. They are not a part of the game as presented but they can included in a campaign anyway.

HOwever, it shows a number of presumptions on your part. First, you presume that I play 4e, which I don't. You presume that 4e, in order to be playable, must include the patches that WOTC puts out. Something that I have no idea if true or not.

My comment was not intended in any way as a potshot in edition wars. It was an obvservation that I LOATHE rules tinkering. I want games that work out of the box so I get down to playing and not have to constantly tweak. This goes far beyond any edition of D&D.

 

[FireLance]

Your campaign: As Hussar mentioned, "the reality is that groups change membership pretty often". It is thus not conducive to a campaign's longevity to cater too much to particular players. Favoritism for one over another is perhaps an obvious mis-step, but the more general error of Monty Haul-ism was Gygax's perennial target. Players who get too much treasure and level advancement for too little challenge tend quickly to tire of the exercise, and that is one way to do disservice to "the game as a whole".

While I don't disagree with the general point, one observation I have made recently is that preferences of challenge and reward can vary greatly between individual players and groups of players. I would suggest that the game is better served by the DM being sensitive to what the players' actual preferences of risk and reward are (and not necessarily what they say their preferences are) and adjusting his campaign accordingly, instead of sticking with what he considers to be the "ideal" standard regardless of player preference.

 

[Ariosto]

I find the ability to differentiate player knowledge and character knowledge and fire wall the two so a players characters are distinct from them-self and other characters they play an awesome player ability.

It would be hard to get more of that brand of "awesome" than the player of a tabletop war game, a video game, etc., who has no thought at all of confusing self and game-pawn.

The notion that not putting oneself "in those shoes" is so much more to be desired in a role-playing game periodically rises to haughty eminence, generally to the detriment of the game as anything but a sort of mock theater.

The way it figures presently is in the vogue to elevate mathematical 'simulation' of a character to such absurd priority as nearly to reduce 'players' to robotic random-number generators.

There is certainly room for what Gygax termed (IIRC) "role emulation", but not to the exclusion of the "role assumption" that he held (if with corresponding bias) to be the more mature form.

A balance of the various modes is, I think, most desirable. Different players start from different aptitudes and interests. The synergies in which we can grow in skill together are among the benefits of long-lasting associations accommodating diverse styles. The game is richer for that breadth and for that depth.

 

[Ariosto]

preferences of challenge and reward can vary greatly between individual players and groups of players. I would suggest that the game is better served by the DM being sensitive to what the players' actual preferences of risk and reward are (and not necessarily what they say their preferences are)

One might note that the Gygaxian D&D books never attempted to lay down any quantified, "one size fits all" standards -- not by the remotest measure relative to the pronouncements in WotC-D&D! The Dungeon Masters Guide began and ended with those same broad, general principles. In between, there was a whole lot of advice based on experience, and a whole lot of rumination on the thinking behind the game structure described.