Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garthanos]

Can you explain in more detail what I outright claimed not to know?

"I can't recall playing 1e with gold for XP either. I just gave a rationale for it upthread, and that's why it's in the discussion. I do like it, though."

I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?

Incidentally, "nobody I knew" doesn't demonstrate anything objective

True its not objective I think that the DM is supposed to make that adjustment (tracking that lonely gp found on the street so you dont get xp for it?) could be just a RAW argument for academia... rather than a difference seen in real life play.

That's not really enough information to know whether it addresses the question.

What percentage of the game time was spent in combat, by your reckoning, and what proportion of the party's XP derived from kills? How often do your adventures come down to a fight with a BBEG?

Sorry didnt address your question. The percentages for this one were about 4/5 non-combat experience... though because combat can take a bit longer play time was higher than 1/5 for the combat and there was combat that was just incidentals in a chase scene.

In this particular case there isnt even a BBEG... the person responsible accidentally created the issue. I feature a lot of "man against the environment" things and have my kids roleplaying with me, so I like mystery where it is about figuring out what has gone wrong.

None of this means it will be typical any more than my experience with AD&D is necessarily typical. (I think the last play I did may have actually been doing 2e )

hmmmm say is there an actual chart showing actual differences between 1e and 2e? < --- never mind I can web hunt that my self

You can go ahead and dispute my perception of XP throughout editions.

I think we are so diverged from the balance in AD&D question it is silly if you feel like positing it in a different thread....

AD&D was created with balance in mind. I actually wonder why this poll was put up?

 

[Hairfoot]

I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?

Why would you assume that not using a rule equals not knowing it exists?

Sorry didnt address your question. The percentages for this one were about 4/5 non-combat experience... though because combat can take a bit longer play time was higher than 1/5 for the combat and there was combat that was just incidentals in a chase scene.

In this particular case there isnt even a BBEG... the person responsible accidentally created the issue. I feature a lot of "man against the environment" things and have my kids roleplaying with me, so I like mystery where it is about figuring out what has gone wrong.

Sounds cool. I love wilderness challenges. My question's pointless. No-one would admit to using an XP structure they deny exists, so it was never going to be enlightening.

I think we are so diverged from the balance in AD&D question it is silly

I agree.

AD&D was created with balance in mind.

I disagree, but 40 pages in I don't think there's much left to be turned over.

If you spend the time to insert punctuation and re-read sentences to make sure they're clear, you'll actually save time getting caught up in miscommunication.

 

[Lanefan]

I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?


True its not objective I think that the DM is supposed to make that adjustment (tracking that lonely gp found on the street so you dont get xp for it?) could be just a RAW argument for academia... rather than a difference seen in real life play.

There's a *big* difference in any edition...any game, for that matter...between a) ignorance via not knowing a rule and b) knowing a rule but intentionally not using it, or changing it.

I've been running 1e since 1984; and while I know the ExP-for-g.p. rule is in the book I've yet to give a party ExP for treasure found, no matter how* they got it.

* - exception: on rare occasions, Thieves get ExP for gold stolen when operating independently and not in a party.

Lanefan

 

[Garthanos]

There's a *big* difference in any edition...any game, for that matter...between a) ignorance via not knowing a rule and b) knowing a rule but intentionally not using it, or changing it.

Blindly using rules (which were not meant to be used that way) because micromanaging them is too much like work is also different and common.(hence the vorpal sword in low level hands mentioned and all the big discussions about Monty Haul gaming... or TPK because random encounter tables were used)

And he did say... didnt recall playing with it (somebody chose not to or missed the rule?) but that he liked it (which usually means one didn't chose not to use it).... but it could mean a DM made that choice for him or that he has changed his mind.

It was used in the groups I played in but I didn't remember gold being a dominant source of experience points.

 

[Garthanos]

* - exception: on rare occasions, Thieves get ExP for gold stolen when operating independently and not in a party.

Lanefan

Kin to ideas like Ariosto mentioned in other games where you received experience points on an action by action basis. (Class by Class differences in how you gain experience is more AD&D style)

 

[Garmorn]

Kin to ideas like Ariosto mentioned in other games where you received experience points on an action by action basis. (Class by Class differences in how you gain experience is more AD&D style)

Not completely. Rolemaster had something similar but it also had action based ex awards. Heck the original one give ep for simply traveling. More unfamiliar the terrain the more ep.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, this has died down a bit, but, I think I just have to give one last go. This is going to be a wall of text, so, you might want to skip to the bottom.

Why Hussar Thinks 1e Was Not Designed for Game Balance

There are two examples I can think of that explain, to me anyway, why I don't think the game was designed with balance in mind. The first has been talked about here - the distribution of treasure guidelines. I'll get to the second in a moment.

I think that it's fair to say that if a system is designed for balance, then using that system should not give unbalanced results. Yet, if I use the treasure system in AD&D, there is a very good chance I will get unbalanced results. Now, it has been mentioned that the DMG is very much aware of this. Guidelines are given that say that you should not follow the rules slavishly as they will give unbalanced results.

The GM is required to balance the rules in other words.

Also, no one can actually answer my question of "what is reasonable?" The closest I get is "Well, reasonable for your campaign." But, that presupposes a fair amount of expertise on my part in runnign a campaign. How will I know if a given item is too much before I try it in the game. So, basically, I have to learn through trial and error.

How is that evidence of design balance? Is that not evidence of a system being not designed for balance?

Take 3e as an example. I think we can agree that 3e was designed for balance. ((I hope we can agree on that anyway)) In 3e, I know within a pretty well defined range, what treasure is appropriate for a given level of character. There is no trial and error. The game tells me that if I want to give out treasure X, it is appropriate for level Y character. I can ignore those guidelines, certainly, but, I know that in doing so, I am now in uncharted territory and it's on my own head to maintain balance in the game.

Take a second example. A basic system that all players must use: Character generation.

System 1 in AD&D is 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. Ok, fine. Now, take two hypothetical groups. The first one gets average results - a couple of 15's between the characters, nothing below 9, most of the rolls between 10 and 14. Group B gets a lot luckier. Each PC has one 18 and one 16 and the rest of the rolls tail off from there.

Now, the power disparity between these two groups is pretty significant. Group A cannot take advantage of various sub-classes (no paladins, probably no monk, ranger or druid) and multi-classing is very difficult. Group 2 can choose pretty much any class or multi-class and is likely getting xp bonuses along the way for high stats, meaning it advances significantly faster..

Now, let's compare two fighters from the two groups. Fighter A has a 15 strength - no bonuses. Fighter B has an 18 percentile strength, at least a +3 to damage. Fighter A has about a 50% chance of killing an average 1 HD monster. Fighter B kills 100%. That's a pretty wide divide.

In a system designed for balance, how can you get two groups with such a massive disparity of power? And, how can a system be considered designed for balance when there are no guidelines whatsoever for dealing with this power disparity? After all a module doesn't say, "For Characters Levels X to Y with ability scores in Z range". It only refers to levels.

---------------

To summarize. IMO, and this is obviously only my opinion, a system cannot be considered designed for balance when using the system gives wildly disparate results. And, not only do you get wildly disparate results, but the rules acknowledge that you will get very different results but give no real guidelines for dealing with it. The system basically dumps it all on the GM and tells him to balance the results "for his own campaign".

Are there elements of game balance in 1e? Of course. You cannot design a game with no balance at all, that would probably be very difficult and completely unplayable. But, was 1e "designed for game balance"? IMO, no, it wasn't. Beyond including what worked at Gygax and co's tables, game balance was left to the individual tables to determine.

 

[Lanefan]

To answer Hussar: I think it all depends on the scale at which you are viewing the system looking for balance. Yes, two parties might be somewhat disparate at initial roll-up...but who's to say those parties won't each have 50% character turnover during their first adventure and each pull back sharply toward the overall average when the replacements are rolled up?

The same goes for treasure. If you're using the random treasure tables 100% of the time (and thus using only homebrew adventures), you're going to get some rich hauls and some poor ones...and in the end they'll balance out; it just might take a while.

It's called chaos theory. Viewed up close, it's skewed all to hell. Viewed from a distance, however, it's balanced to a 't'.

And that's how 1e was designed...for long-term balance, ignoring the day-to-day variances. And it's the day-to-day variances that make it fun.

Lanefan

 

[Hairfoot]

After this many pages there's little hope of saying anything new, but what "balance" means in D&D has changed radically since 1e was published.

From a 4e point of view, 1e is hopelessly unbalanced. Each class is different, XP tables are out of sync, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of classes change drastically during the progression of levels.

From a 1e point of view, 4e is hopelessly bland. Each class is the same, XP tables are identical, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of classes are static during the progression of levels.

There's really no one answer to the thread's core question.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

It's called chaos theory...

Actually, it sounds like you mean the Law of Large Numbers (probability theory).