Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Bullgrit]

Grave dangers just getting to the dungeon.

Monsterous dangers laired and wandering in the dungeon.

Unfound treasures. Found treasures being non-portable.

Grave dangers getting back home from the dungeon with the minimal loot haul.

High training costs and taxes.

One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.

This kind of thing sounds so much like the old, "We walked through rain and snow to school, uphill, both ways."

I'm just really glad that none of my old D&D gaming experiences were like this. I'm glad that none of my DMs were so "competent" and none of the dungeons we adventured in were as "proper" as this.

Bullgrit

 

[Scribble]

One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.

This kind of thing sounds so much like the old, "We walked through rain and snow to school, uphill, both ways."

I'm just really glad that none of my old D&D gaming experiences were like this. I'm glad that none of my DMs were so "competent" and none of the dungeons we adventured in were as "proper" as this.

Bullgrit

I've found a whole lot of stuff in gaming works out well on paper when you have a ton of time to think about it, and plan it, but ends up being a lot different when it hits the table... or the fan...

 

[Raven Crowking]

One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.

They probably followed Gygax's advice for successful adventuring in the back of the PHB.

Success in Gygaxian D&D is not measured by getting everything; it is measured by maximizing profit while minimizing risk. Doing so often requires knowing what not to bother with.

"Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" applies to Gygaxian treasure troves as much as to anything else. Bulky treasure is the rope, not knowing what to leave behind ends up hanging the PCs. This is part of what Gygax defined as "good play"....although it may not be to everyone's tastes!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, it occurs to me -- I can understand not liking a game style. I have a hard time trying to imagine what your goal is in "proving it doesn't exist"? Maybe you could enlighten me.

Because there is nothing wrong with not liking a game style. Nor is there anything wrong with each edition changing the parameters of game style based upon the perceived market of the day.

I guess I'm asking: What is the point?


RC

 

[Votan]

BTW, it occurs to me -- I can understand not liking a game style. I have a hard time trying to imagine what your goal is in "proving it doesn't exist"? Maybe you could enlighten me.

Because there is nothing wrong with not liking a game style. Nor is there anything wrong with each edition changing the parameters of game style based upon the perceived market of the day.

I guess I'm asking: What is the point?


RC

Mostly I am trying to get back to an era where there was more hetereogeneity in gaming styles to look for inspiration as to how to improve the play experience in the modern era. While the decisions that led to the current approach are often sound, they do not invalidate different approaches to the game.

It's also the case that early game playing tended to be regionally different. I grew up in Canada (Ontario) and it could well be that we deciphered and interpreted rules very differently. Certainly nobody I gamed with back in the day was able to argue that they'd seem Arneson's table and how it was run.

So I don;t think I am trying to prove that a style did not exist; I am more trying to figure out different ways to approach the game. I might end up exactly where I am now but with it having been a more examined approach to the whole process.

So far, what I have learned is that there is a break even point with a volume of rules material after which more material, no matter how good, begins to interfere with my enjoyment as a DM. I also note that it is a higher threshold as a player. I also have noticed that the idea of "balance" has changed radically and that some of the older styles had a lot to recommend them.

 

[Hussar]

No RC. What we're claiming is that more play styles than yours actually exist and you are dismissing anything that does not follow your playstyle as being the product of "incompetent DM's".

Sure, your style exists. How common it is is up for grabs. How it's any more valid than other styles is also up for debate.

The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory.

Look, according to you, a good player will gain most of his xp from treasure, by avoiding encounters. Ok, fair enough. What's "most"? 50 plus 1 per cent? That seems a bit low. Let's say 66%. That's a pretty clear "most".

That means, you can guess the wealth of a character by simply multiplying his xp by 66%. Give or take. So, if the PC has 100000 xp (about 6th level ish), he's going to have about 60-70 thousand gp, at least - because likely he's also going to have magic items that he's kept and not sold.

Now, sure, you're going to make him pay level tax. What constitutes the different levels of play is also VERY much up for debate. I recall the examples given of play in the DMG as something along the lines of "Did the fighter run away? No? Then that's excellent play". This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that two weeks of training was the standard.

Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes.

For me, Bullgrit's analysis of 1e matched up almost picture perfectly with my own experiences. Now I'm being told that the only reason they do is because the DM was incompetent and none of us knew how to "really" play the game. That's a trifle insulting don't you think?

I also have noticed that the idea of "balance" has changed radically and that some of the older styles had a lot to recommend them.

Totally agree with this.

 

[billd91]

The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory.

Pot meet kettle. There's been plenty of this from your posts in this and related threads as well.

Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's merely dueling anecdotes. How many times do any of us have to point out rules and recommendations validating our interpretations of this game's design assumptions before you'll stop dismissing them as anecdotal?

If you want to discuss differences in playing styles, relatively merits and weaknesses, that's a whole different kettle of fish than debating the game's design intentions and assumptions. Judging from the topic of this thread, it's the latter that is the subject of this thread and not the former.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, every time I bring up things FROM THE RULES that illustrate my point, they get ignored. Treasure tables that the rules specifically state will result in unbalanced games are somehow has transformed into rules that are meant for game balance. Character building mechanics that result in totally different power levels, with no baseline for comparison magically results in balanced design.

Every example I bring up, is countered by "Well in my game we did this".

I pointed to RC's completely circular logic - good players will get the treasure, good DM's will prevent good players from getting the treasure, therefore no group could have both good players and good DM's. And that gets ignored.

The fact, not opinion, FACT that there is over a MILLION gold pieces in a module gets dismissed as, "well, thirty years ago, one group playing in a tournament game didn'T get the treasure, therefore no one ever should". I mean, come on.

You guys have some very strong play assumptions that I just do not share. Nor do I think that these play assumptions - rapid character replacement, frequent poor play resulting in high training costs, deadly random encounters frequently occuring, and others - are actually as wide spread and universal as you seem to be claiming.

Look, I've made my case. There's not much else I can do here. I'm tired of goal posts on roller skates and dueling anecdotes. I do not believe 1e was designed for game balance. I believe it was designed to give you a play experience that resembled Gygax and co's table and, if you deviated from their play style, your game went kerblooie.

The more I hear you and RC talk about 1e, the more limiting it sounds. The DM MUST screw over the players and never let them have the treasure. The game MUST be competetive between the DM and players. The game MUST feature certain elements - rapid character death being one of them.

No wonder I gave up on 1e decades ago. Not my game at all.

 

[Umbran]

Nearly 50 pages. Folks not coming to real agreement, and getting kinda personal. This thread has had plenty of time to go where it was going to go. Time to let it rest. THUNK.

Edit: After a touch of thought and discussion, leaving this open isn't so bad.

Please, remember to address the substance of the argument, not the poster personally.