Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[nightwyrm]

I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players. In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve. They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules. But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.

 

[AllisterH]

2e didn't nerf the druid: they completely destroyed the Cleric and Magic-User classes and subclasses. The introduction of spheres and schools as more than just descriptive text completely ruined the balance of those classes, as well as destroying the uniqueness of the Illusionist and the Druid. The Druid sort of maintained some uniqueness, the Illusionist was gutted and left to rot.

There are many things that 2e clearly did better than 1e. The redesign of the Cleric, Druid, Magic-User and Illusionist was not one of those things.

Cheers!

Actually, there _WAS_ errata for the Spheres so that they fixed the divine classes. Inspired by a DRAGON article that reassigned the spells into their proper spheres, the Player's Option:Spells and Magic had the new sphere system.

Took almost 7 years into 2e, but they did get it right finally (which I might add, was the basis for the BEST 2e product, Faiths & Avatars)

 

[Mallus]

Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e.

Totally agree -- though I think it has something to do with the fact people are more familiar with role-playing game conventions now than they were 30 years ago, thanks to there being 30 or so more years worth of role-playing games (and gamers) out there, not to mention the exposure to RPG elements you get from other media, ie video and computer games, CCG's, and the animated shows based on them.

 

[Clavis]

I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players. In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve. They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules. But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.

Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems. If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else. The players were not expected to know the systems the DM used in any event, so the DM was less concerned about rules lawyers. No matter what the DM was doing behind the screen, it might all look the same in front of it. AD&D looks very complicated on paper, but it can actually be played very light if the DM wants to reduce his workload. That's the advantage of non-unified, non-interlocking rules. Of course, such a system does not allow for things like "rules mastery" on the part of players, but I personally consider that a good thing.

 

[nightwyrm]

Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems. If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else. The players were not expected to know the systems the DM used in any event, so the DM was less concerned about rules lawyers. No matter what the DM was doing behind the screen, it might all look the same in front of it. AD&D looks very complicated on paper, but it can actually be played very light if the DM wants to reduce his workload. That's the advantage of non-unified, non-interlocking rules. Of course, such a system does not allow for things like "rules mastery" on the part of players, but I personally consider that a good thing.

I'm not sure that's such an easier thing. Sure, the DM has more power and more leeway to simply make things up. But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle. Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.

A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game. A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e. The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems. 1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.

We are talking about "balance" here. It seems to me that the numeric balance in 3e and 4e is far more transparent than that in 1e, which should make learning what the DM has to add to keep things running smoothly easier.

From my experience and judgement, I'd still say that I think 1e had a much shallower learning curve. Even as DM you didn't need to know everything to run a game, the whole process was much more straightforward.

I know 13 year olds who picked up the books and took to it like a duck to water.

The unity of the d20 system is touted as an advantage, but while it has a theoretical appeal it is also a little problematic as so many things in 3e were integrated together that it was more difficult to evaluate the knock-on effects of changes. It seems even worse in 4e to me. Sure you can change the paint job on the outside, but changing any of the fundamental underpinnings is far more difficult because the underlying design is hidden (e.g. in 4e the relationship of damage, duration, and different side effects for different powers).

All through 3e (which I really like BTW) I pointed out that it suffers from high coupling of its systems. 1e was in many ways a more practical design with high cohesion and low coupling between its subsystems - there were no knock-on effects from changing one subsystem.

It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
Cheers

 

[Clavis]

I'm not sure that's such an easier thing. Sure, the DM has more power and more leeway to simply make things up. But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle. Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.

A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game. A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.

I will admit that in my experience pre-WOTC D&D is much more sensitive to DM quality than WOTC D&D. In 3rd or 4th, a player is pretty much assured a fair to good game every time. Pre-WOTC can be truly awful when you have an awful DM. A good DM, however, can take pre-WOTC D&D to great places that the rules of 3rd and 4th simply do not allow him to go. Its the bugbear of "game balance" that sabatoges great DMs, IMHO. Sure, you get predictability, but you lose the greatness that can only happen when you throw the rules out. Throw the rules out for a strech in AD&D and the rest of the game is fine. Throw out the rules in WOTC D&D, and your game will fall apart.

 

[Storm Raven]

Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems. If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else.

I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.

 

[Clavis]

I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.

In 3rd, the DM always has the problem of Feats to think about. Any attempt to change procedures can invalidate one or more of the PCs carefully chosen Feats. For instance, giving any player a chance to hit multiple opponents (with severe penalties), because it would be dramatically appropriate, will invalidate the Cleave feat. Trying to do without Attacks of Opportunity will invalidate a host of Feats that employ them. Because WOTC interconnects all its rules for D&D, changing any rule on the fly will always have unexpected effects.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.

The same problems any ruling has using any system-those that the participants see as problems.