Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[billd91]

Well, considering that Bill91 agrees with me, that the giants actually won't flee, perhaps some rereading wouldn't hurt. Just saying.

Oh, I'm not saying none of them will flee, just that there's not going to be any any organization to it, and most won't even try to get to G2. They're far too disorganized and busy partying to even really try. But I had a bunch of mine in the outer rooms take to the hills the last time I ran G1 once the party had quelled the giants in the main hall.

Edit: Nor are the giants in G3 likely to flee. They're too likely to put up a spirited defense even when their chances are crumbling. Giants in G2, they're likely to be pretty good cut-and-runners.

 

[MerricB]

Besides that, we just piled everything in one big pile and hit it with detect magic. When a bag glows, well, you've really only got two choices by and large - bag of holding or devouring.

You forgot the Bag of Tricks.

But, yes - the portable hole/bag of holding implosion happens once (because you haven't read the DMG, have you, my players?) and then a bag never goes into a hole or vice-versa again.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I did some rereading last night....the notes about the giants fleeing were still there. Odd that.

What I had a really hard time finding were the bags of holding and the portable hole you mentioned. Could you give me a reference? Doubtless, I simply missed them......?

(The module does give the volume for some of that treasure, making me wonder just how much even a single hole would be worth, even were it there. Also, the teleport between adventures allows only six man-sized figures, making it unlikely that a wagon train of mules could be used unless the party went overland....and experienced encounters as a result thereof.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about we open a thread called "Is 4e designed for game balance?"

In it, I can describe how, though neither following the rules, nor following module text as written, I achieved unbalanced results, and then blame the designers. Because, AFAICT, that is what this thread has boiled down to.


RC

 

[Keefe the Thief]

How about we open a thread called "Is 4e designed for game balance?"

In it, I can describe how, though neither following the rules, nor following module text as written, I achieved unbalanced results, and then blame the designers. Because, AFAICT, that is what this thread has boiled down to.


RC

Why not? Then as soon as you complain about the balance in 4e and cite an adventure to support your position, people can say stuff like "you changed the rules without being as experienced as Mike Mearls!"

That would be like that mirror universe from Star Trek: people arguing that the 4e white box killed characters as soon as you rolled their stats, Diaglo eating Burning Wheel pages for breakfast, etc.

Of course, we could also - after trazillion pages of arguing - just agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why not? Then as soon as you complain about the balance in 4e and cite an adventure to support your position, people can say stuff like "you changed the rules without being as experienced as Mike Mearls!"

And they would be right! I certainly don't have the experience with 4e necessary to change the rules and know that my changes will not have unintended consequences.

One would hope that the designers have enough insight into the rules to change them with fewer problems than the average player/DM would. I would wonder why I am paying for a product that the average player/DM can revise with little consequence.

After all, that is the source of the admonition in the 1e DMG: That you can change the systems if you like, but they are as they are for a reason, and if you change them, it helps to first understand them well enough to know what your changes are actually going to do to game play. (Paraphrased -- I don't have the 1e DMG with me here at work. I am sure someone could pull the exact quote.)

And, while I am sure that there are folks who can change 4e without problems, I have little sympathy for those who make changes, then blame 4e when those changes don't pan out the way they expected!

I mean, look at how many early 4e threads revolved around "problems" that people who liked 4e were not having. 4e doesn't provide what I want, but it does provide its own thing. Not understanding what that "own thing" is led to a lot of poorly-thought-out posts, including my own, which I have little sympathy for in retrospect. As my understanding of 4e grows, my respect for it as a system grows as well. I still don't want to run it, but I can see why people enjoy it. And some of my earlier opinions were flat-out wrong.

Is that the fault of 4e, or is that my fault?

You don't need to answer -- that is my fault.

If you neither follow the rules, nor following module text as written, achieve unbalanced results, and then blame the designers, that is your fault. It doesn't matter what game system it is.

(That the rules in 1e are hard to follow [sometimes in both a literal and figurative sense], though, is Gary's fault. Let blame fall where blame is due.)

Of course, we could also - after trazillion pages of arguing - just agree to disagree, and move on.

We could even, perhaps, do so before we reach a trazillion pages.


RC

 

[Witty Comeback]

But, at the end of the day, I think you're arguing in a circle. A good player, with good player skills, will get the treasure. That's what defines, according to you, a good player. A good DM will prevent the player from getting the treasure, again, according to you.

So, if you have good players, you automatically must have a bad DM - because a good DM would never let the players get the treasure back to town. If you have bad players, you automatically have a good DM.

I think that is a slight mischaracterization. I interpret RC as saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a good DM will place treasure such that good play will be rewarded with that treasure, and poor play will not. Making treasure impossible to retrieve is bad DMing, because neither good play nor bad play will be distinguishable. Making all the treasure easily retrieved is bad DMing, because both good play and bad play will be rewarded. The trick, then, is to set up the challenges such that skilled players can reap benefits that poor players cannot (or do not).

Furthermore, the important part (according to his posts) is that the entire retrieval process be carried out, i.e. finding it, recognizing it as valuable, actually being able to remove it from the dungeon, etc.

Edit: Also, your summary reminded me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes: "Good hitting will defeat good pitching very time, and vice versa."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I interpret RC as saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a good DM will place treasure such that good play will be rewarded with that treasure, and poor play will not. Making treasure impossible to retrieve is bad DMing, because neither good play nor bad play will be distinguishable. Making all the treasure easily retrieved is bad DMing, because both good play and bad play will be rewarded. The trick, then, is to set up the challenges such that skilled players can reap benefits that poor players cannot (or do not).

Furthermore, the important part (according to his posts) is that the entire retrieval process be carried out, i.e. finding it, recognizing it as valuable, actually being able to remove it from the dungeon, etc.

I only wish I had said it that well.

Add to this the idea that you could rank player skill on a level from 1 to 10, with 1 being rank amature and 10 being the most skilled a player can be. Most players will rank 4-6. With me?

A good DM will include rewards that can be obtained by each of these ranks, with the harder rewards only being obtainable by the higher ranking players. In addition, the more difficult it is to obtain a reward, the greater the reward will be. Thus, while most characters will gain a significant amount of treasure, few will gain close to all of it, and what is gained will actually vary from party to party based upon their actions in the fictional gamespace.

A good example of this is the Ring of Three Wishes in Module G2. It is only obtainable if one defeats a remorhaz without using any fire magic (fireball, flame strike, etc.). Arguably, the players have to realize that the killing field probably contains treasure, and that fire spells will melt a portion of the glacier, thus removing that treasure from their reach. In addition, they have to search the area effectively, and then figure out what the ring is. A challenge, if played properly, for players ranking about 7-8 (IMHO).

This is similar to the major treasure near the Giant Crayfish in T1; it players prod the water with anything other than their hands, it slips away and is lost.

In G3, there is another Ring of Three Wishes hidden in a box with 71 other rings, none of which is immediately distinguishable from the others. This is part of a larger treasure hoard that will take work to identify the important treasures therein, and figure out a way to transport them. One of the rings has contact poison (no save) on it, so that incautious players will have a death as well as three wishes (thus presumably using up one of the wishes). This is, I estimate, a challenge for players ranking 4-6 to get the ring, about 6-7 to get the ring without someone dying while examining the treasure (there are other traps).

These are only estimates, mind, and my ideas are hardly the be-all and end-all of how hard it should be to obtain X, Y, or Z.


RC

 

[Votan]

Also, the teleport between adventures allows only six man-sized figures, making it unlikely that a wagon train of mules could be used unless the party went overland....and experienced encounters as a result thereof.

I admit that I am not 100% clear on what you are arguing here. It's true that overland trips have encounters but, unless you deliberately make them unusually deadly, 9th level characters (pretty typical median level for G1) aren't much bothered by them.

Teleport has a weight capacity and you only really need the caster to go if you are exchanging silver pieces for gems.

Part of the issue might be whether you ramp up threats to player level in the general setting. If the big city of X is dangerous to 9th level characters than the 2nd levels who first appear there are simply dead. If random wilderness encounters make 9th level fighters concerned then your 4th level travelers are dead (and there is no commerce at all).

I think the point is that the modules have a lot of treasure and a party that is systematic will get a lot of it. Part of it isn't being slow to fight the Giants -- once you are done people can search the G1 setting for a long time before proceeding. This can even make sense -- ambushes are much more likely to be set up if you follow any fleeing Giants quickly.

Sure, you can argue for a sense of time pressure but now you are moving into the realm of how the setting adapts. I am not trying to say that getting the treasure was trivial (it isn't) but that a careful party can get a surprising percentage of it, in my experience.

I no longer own these modules so there may be some feature that we did not do correctly all those years ago. But it seems odd that one would include massive amounts of treasure on the hypothesis that most of it would not be found. Some won't . . . but much might be too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If one assumes that the group is playing the game as described in the DMG, then there should be trouble with searching the G1 setting for a long time before proceeding. First off, it should be remembered that the giants have the benefit of the "best advice" (from the Drow).

If the giants left a lot of treasure in the Steading, it would not be unreasonable for the giants from G2 to send a party to recover it. If the wizard is currently away selling the gems (via teleport), that's just too bad. It should also be assumed that the survivors tell whatever they know about the PCs, and that any giant group arriving at the Steading should have fairly good intelligence.

The party searching the Steading will also have to deal with any returning ogres or giants that were not at the Steading when they first arrived, as well as standard wilderness encounters. Those orc and bugbear slaves came from somewhere.....perhaps when their tribes hear that the Steading has fallen, they will come poking about for treasure. The orc tribe might even feel such treasure is earned, if the captive orcs helped the PCs (as is suggested in the module).

I don't think that the sheer bulk of the treasure in the G Series modules has become completely apparent. Or, for that matter, the amount of time it would take to thoroughly search the entire module setting. For that matter, do the PCs "thoroughly search" the entire setting? If so, how many go permanently insane before the learn to stop trying to be thorough in the weird temple?