Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[MerricB]

Not "if used", only without judicious and intelligent useage. There is a difference.

With regard to the rules, there isn't, unfortunately. While AD&D is a secure enough system to withstand quite a bit of over-rewarding (or under-rewarding, as the case might be), there comes a time when it is definitely detrimental to the game.

However, there is almost nothing in the AD&D books to indicate what that point might be. "Judicious and intelligent usage" works, but only for DMs with enough experience of actual play to make such judgements. This isn't to say that the prescriptive nature of 4E with regard to magic items is a good thing, but just to agree that AD&D as written gives little guidance on what are proper rewards for PCs with regard to magic items.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1. How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?

There isn't one. To quite some extent, this is irrelevant to a lot of AD&D. Either the DM balances encounters based on the group, or the group balances encounters themselves - either by adventuring in less dangerous areas, or by hiring men-at-arms and henchmen.

2. What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?

The answer to what Gygax considered this an average encounter can be found in the XP rules: you got full XP only for an encounter where the Hit Dice balanced (with the monster HD being adjusted by their special abilities). I don't have the DMG with me at present, but it's probably in the range of 28-32 levels balances that encounter.

However, I don't know how much Gary used that rule, nor do I really consider it a good estimation of balance. (For vanilla creatures, it's not that bad). Still, in early D&D, 1 level balances 1 Hit Die does make quite a bit of sense... insofar as balanced might mean that either side could win!

3. What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4. How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

Heh. I agree totally that AD&D fails to give good answers to those questions. Indeed, it's one of my chief points of contention with AD&D as written. However, I do wonder how relevant the questions are - and I wonder if there's a good answer to them.

4E, for example, uses a very prescriptive system for assigning magic items. It preserves balance, but would a +3 sword instead of a +1 sword really wreck balance that much? I doubt it.

However, if you add a set of +4 plate and a +3 shield to that sword at a low level, then you suddenly gain a problem. It's not something that can be easily ruled upon. Relying on the judgement of the DM? Yes, that's a solution that allows for the massive number of variables the rules can throw up, but for an inexperienced DM, a poor answer.

In my opinion, AD&D - and the DMG in particular - suffers from Gary assuming a more experienced brand of Dungeon Master than often was reading the book. A notable exception to this his essay on why not to use monsters as PCs, which, although it directly contradicts his statements in oD&D, shows the signs of playtest experience. When it comes to treasure, a novice DM can understand the twin traps of Killer Dungeons and Monty Haulism, but knowing what the path is that leads between them? That's very unclear from the rulebooks.

It should be noted and emphasised that the concept of balance between PCs and monsters is one that depends greatly on the group. As the challenges are selected by the DM, and can be often avoided by the players, the concept of a strict challenge level is irrelevant. (Consider when it become relevant and the style of the campaign then).

Far more important to the AD&D player is the balance between the character classes. Does that exist? Yes, although it may not be as precise as what occurs in later editions. AD&D characters are not so balanced, with the addition of ability scores, but it should noted that even a character with (relatively) low ability scores can take advantage of the demihuman races and multiclassing to distinguish themselves from other PCs.

Thus, although one fighter might have an 18/73 strength, the other fighter with a 15 strength might choose to become an elf fighter/magic-user and gain abilities that way.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

With regard to the rules, there isn't, unfortunately.

I obviously disagree. When I started playing D&D, it was through Holmes Basic, then reading the AD&D1 books. No one taught me how to play; I had no prior experience with either wargames or rpgs.

However, there is almost nothing in the AD&D books to indicate what that point might be.

I obviously disagree. There is no hard-and-fast point given, but neither is there a hard-and-fast point inherent in the rules to be given. There is a sliding scale, with "too much" at one end and "too little" at the other. There is a lot of information about why systems are as they are, and there is a lot of advice given as to how to run a game. Follow the advice, and you are very likely to be in the comfortable middle, neither "too much" nor "too little".

That is what I, and dozens of others like me, did, to my certain knowledge. And I am not talking about dozens I grew up with, but people I met through the U.S. Army and, later, moving to California and Canada.

I am sure that there are many thousands who did the same, who I have never had the good fortune to meet.

"Judicious and intelligent usage" works, but only for DMs with enough experience of actual play to make such judgements.

You must think that I, and others who have managed to apply "judicious and intelligent usage" from Game 1, through the medium of reading the books and understanding what was therein, have some kind of inherent genius to be able to do so. I thank you for the compliment.

However, I don't believe that there is anything at all difficult to applying "judicious and intelligent usage" to the AD&D1 game. It is only a matter of attitude and approach. Anyone could do it, and nearly anyone could learn how to do it merely by reading the books and then following the advice therein. IME, anyway. YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1. How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
2. What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
3. What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4. How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

These are all basic game balance issues. These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point. Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?

Oh, that's easy. The problem you are having is that you assume that it is the DM who answers these questions.

1. There is no standard party side. How many PCs are on the expedition? How many henchmen and hirelings do they have? That is the party size. Party size is determined by the players, not the DM.

2. There is no standard character level. Players determine the amount of risk they are willing to undergo. If you look in the encounter charts in the 1e DMG, you can find what dungeon level 4 gargoyles is likely to be found on. When the PCs are on that dungeon level, regardless of their character level, 4 gargoyles is (potentially) a standard encounter. The players determine, through their choices, when they are ready for such encounters.

3. The level at which the player earns the sword. If there is a +2 sword in Castle Greyhawk, it is possible (though unlikely) that a 1st level expedition will find it. It is possible (and far more likely) that it will never be found. The character level isn't really all that important; what is important is that the treasure found is balanced by the effort taken to find it.

4. A 7th level PC should have as many magic items as he or she can locate, convince the party to allow him or her to take as a fair share, and preserve (both from use, from loss, and from destruction). However, intelligent useage (on the part of the player, which is part of the convincing & preserving mentioned) would indicate that, in some cases, these items should nonetheless be spread about to make the party stronger (even if on loan), which increases overall survivability and maximizes future profit.

The amount of magic items a 7th level NPC should have, or a new PC created at 7th level, is given in the 1e DMG.


Hope that helped.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no hard-and-fast point given, but neither is there a hard-and-fast point inherent in the rules to be given. There is a sliding scale, with "too much" at one end and "too little" at the other.

One more thing about this:

As it is easier to balance upon four legs than one, it is easier to achieve balance with a sliding scale than with a single point.

A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is notably less well balanced than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.

AD&D 1e has legs. It is still an ongoing gaming concern. Arguably, it still has more players today than any other version of the game. How has 3e fared now that there are new editions (4e, Pathfinder)? Not so well as 1e, it seems. Will as many people still be playing 3e when as many years have passed since 1e was first "upgraded"?

So much for the vaunted importance of "balance" being defined as "standing on the head of a pin"!

(And AD&D 1e is not my game of choice.....if it were, RCFG wouldn't have so many elements of later editions. There is great value in [some] later mechanics, but the claim that 1e wasn't designed for balance, as the designers defined proper balance, is crazy talk.)


RC

 

[FireLance]

One more thing about this:

As it is easier to balance upon four legs than one, it is easier to achieve balance with a sliding scale than with a single point.

A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is notably less well balanced than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.

Then it's good thing that no edition of D&D requires that a "standard" adventuring party face "standard" challenges and receive "standard" rewards, right?

Certain editions of D&D may advise that the balancing work is (mostly) done for you if you follow certain standard assumptions, but the DM is otherwise free to do what he wants and use his own judgement to balance the game however he likes - just as in every edition of D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then it's good thing that no edition of D&D requires that a "standard" adventuring party face "standard" challenges and receive "standard" rewards, right?

Indeed it is!

Certain editions of D&D may advise that the balancing work is (mostly) done for you if you follow certain standard assumptions, but the DM is otherwise free to do what he wants and use his own judgement to balance the game however he likes - just as in every edition of D&D.

IMHO, the ease of doing so is inversely correlated to the steepness of the power curve. Flattening the power curve makes this far easier, say, in 4e than in 3e.

IMHO. YMMV.

If one considers "tolerance to variables" as a fundamental function of balance, then 4e is clearly more balanced than 3e, and 1e is clearly more balanced than either.


RC

 

[Jhaelen]

A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is notably less well balanced than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.

Hear, hear. Now, I don't know what game you're talking about here, actually.

I'll just say one thing about my personal experience with 1e:
If a game was balanced or not depended entirely on the DM (nothing new there, hey!). Most DMs I played with didn't have a clue (or cared) about balance. So it wasn't only difficult to find a DM, it was, that it was difficult to find a DM that managed to properly judge what was easy, what was challenging and what was overpowering.

Bad experience with DMs ultimately led me to abandon AD&D. So, I was overjoyed when 3e came along with the promise of an objective system that would allow a DM to judge the difficulty of planned encounters with a minimum of effort.

The CR system was intended as a protection from bad (or simply inexperienced) DMs. For DMs that were actually interested in providing a fun game for their players it was a tool to measure if their encounter ideas would provide an appropriate challenge or not.

It was supposed to be an additional tool that DMs may find helpful but never a straightjacket. The idea was that providing DMs with better tools would allow more DMs to become good DMs.

Now, we know that the CR system was far from perfect but it was _something_.

Ultimately, I don't care for anyone's definition of balance but mine. I want my game to be balanced in the way that I find appropriate. My 2e Darksun Campaign used a different 'balance' than my 'Standard' campaign.
There is a time for easy encounters and a time for overwhelming encounters. But I, as the DM, want to be able to plan them that way.

Every tool that can help me to judge if an encounter will represent the kind of challenge I'm looking for is welcome.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Every tool that can help me to judge if an encounter will represent the kind of challenge I'm looking for is welcome.

Sure, and the steeper the power curve, the more tools you need. Where the difference is between X and X+1, encounter design is more forgiving than when it is between X and X+10.


RC

EDIT: Despite the tools provided, IME, the % chance that a 3e DM is a bad DM is roughly the same as with 1e. I would certainly agree, though, that I've never seen a 3e DM as bad as a few 1e DMs I have known, so the tools seem to be doing something.

Of course, the CR system is the Monster Level system from 1e, just made grainier to deal with the increased power curve.

 

[Garmorn]

Sure, and the steeper the power curve, the more tools you need. Where the difference is between X and X+1, encounter design is more forgiving than when it is between X and X+10.


RC

EDIT: Despite the tools provided, IME, the % chance that a 3e DM is a bad DM is roughly the same as with 1e. I would certainly agree, though, that I've never seen a 3e DM as bad as a few 1e DMs I have known, so the tools seem to be doing something.

Of course, the CR system is the Monster Level system from 1e, just made grainier to deal with the increased power curve.

I would have to disagree about the percentage of bad DM but only because you had more experienced good DM at the start as a percentage of the DM's.

I would say that the CR system was the Monster level system improved by adding more weight to the non hd strengths and weakness of a monster. 4e exp system is similar but more accurate simple do the closer ties to all of the monsters abilities.

Should not the statement about fines be:

It is easlier to control and judge when X+10 is now equal to the old X+1 so you have more and finer steps to tweak things?