Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[billd91]

But look at the poll results. Wow. More people think AD&D1 was not designed for game balance. Really? This surprises me. I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules. This is like seeing a poll say that more people think the sky is not blue.

It's really a question of definitions. Is the sky blue? What do you mean by blue? Sky blue, cerulean, royal blue, navy blue, periwinkle, cornflower? Given today's weather, I'm looking at white, but then I'm looking at a 12" snow advisory over the next 24 hours.

Balance, in RPGs, means different things to different people. I also think it's really a no-brainer that 1e was designed with game balance in mind... but it's a different type of balance than current gamers and WotC designers tend to focus on these days.

 

[Bullgrit]

This is looking a lot like the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions:

X concept is bad, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.
X concept is good, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is bad, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is good, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.


Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.

I need to copyright the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions (RoC). Or is it trademark?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

I'm not convinced by the argument that new DMs benefit from more hand-holding or systems to make it easier for them to run games well since, well, being a DM isn't exactly rocket science! Tens of thousands of people were running fun games of D&D back in the 70's and early 80's with what little support and advice was available back then.

The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas. Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway. I am not benefiting from the advancement? The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit? Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?

 

[diaglo]

The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas. Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway. I am not benefiting from the advancement? The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit? Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?

and some cars back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s got great gas mileage.

it is only b/c of gas shortages in the 70s that people really got to looking more carefully.

and what did it prove. that we learned nothing.

b/c of the gas guzzlers of the 90s and 00s.

the mpg of cars may be on the floor of Congress or the world stage at the UN.

but people still prefer their choice of car. getting the parts is the problem.

on topic. i think 1edADnD was just following the trend with the introduction of Supplement I Greyhawk in 1975.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

This is looking a lot like the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions:

X concept is bad, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.
X concept is good, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is bad, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is good, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.


Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.

I need to copyright the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions (RoC). Or is it trademark?

Bullgrit

Problem really stems from the fact that what constitutes "balance" is thought of rather differently today than it was for 1E. If the original poll question and response options were now to be rephrased AS your EARoC you'd actually get a somewhat different discussion. This is actually less of of an edition war and more a discussion of game history and design.

Although people responded differently to the poll they nonetheless seem to agree that things hinge on how you choose to consider the idea of "balance". Some think of it only in the more current sense, some consider it according to how it was thought of at the time, some a little of both. Given the discussion the poll really needs to be redone.

 

[Bullgrit]

Problem really stems from the fact that what constitutes "balance" is thought of rather differently today than it was for 1E.

If the poll question was:
Were school lunches in the 80s balanced?

You're saying that because our current concepts of "balanced deit" are different (4 food groups versus food pyramid, etc.) today than they were in the 80s, some people might answer differently?

One person might say, "Yes, they were balanced," based on the thinking of the time. Because there were charts and guidelines for balance.

Another person might say, "No, they were not balanced," based on thinking of today. Even though there were charts and guidelines for balance.

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

and what did it prove. that we learned nothing.

No. It proved that consumers can be distracted from what they know. More importantly, on the producer's side it also proved that failing to follow smart designs when they are available can be very bad for business.

There are at least two levels upon which a design goal can be evaluated - utility to the individual, and value to the aggregate. When discussing incremental improvements, for any given design goal or feature, you can probably make an argument that an individual does not really "need" it. However, the value becomes far more clear when viewed in the aggregate of the market, where the actions of large numbers of individuals become visible.

Was the absolute, stunning simplicity of the iPod interface really necessary? Certainly not, as humans are pretty good with gadgets. It is very clear than pretty much any individual can use an mp3 player with a far more complicated and clumsy interface. However, that doesn't mean that interface was not a major reason for the product's success.

Frequently, the extra utility is marginal for each individual - but those marginals can add up when we talk about the product's overall success.

 

[Storm Raven]

But look at the poll results. Wow. More people think AD&D1 was not designed for game balance. Really? This surprises me. I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules. This is like seeing a poll say that more people think the sky is not blue.

Well, the first thing is to reiterate the point that what was meant by "balance" in the 1e era is very different than what game designers refer to as "balance" now, to such an extent that the current definition would have been unrecognizable to Gygax as a game concern in 1972.

I would further argue that "balance" simply wasn't much of a design consideration for the first edition of D&D. Some things were clearly superior to others, and that was just the way it was. The primary goals of the game were different - providing a functioning system that would more or less simulate pulp action.

 

[TerraDave]

Because I see the balancing mechanisms all over the place in AD&D1, and I read the advice for balance in the DMG and Dragon magazine, I assumed that those saying AD&D1 didn't bother with balance must be just a vocal minority.

Your right. The irony is that if anything, there are more, and more complicated, bits and pieces for balancing in that game then probably any edition of D&D.

Take high level spell casting. You have got to avoid getting your spell disrupted, beat magic resistance, maybe hope a save is failed (unlikely at high levels), and that the target is not immune. While portrayed as gods, high level spell-casters could be nerfed by high level oponents.

But the balancing was conditional, in a few ways, and didn't really work a lot of the time in play. Hence unbalanced, and I guess some people liked it that way.

 

[jdrakeh]

I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules.

I think that the intent for game balance was there, as I think concerted efforts were made to honor that intent. Ultimately, though, I think that most of those attempts failed.