Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Scribble]

It is no secret that, while originally understanding that faster combats should be a goal for 4e, the designers tweaked the numbers so as to give everyone a chance to do "cool stuff". IOW, after taking steps to speed combats up, they went back and slowed combat back down.

I think this idea is kind of misunderstood.

I don't think they were designing from the idea that the combat itself should take a lot less time, but instead that the combat itself should be faster paced.

In 3e combats could slow to almost a crawl, especially at higher levels, when people had various actions they could take, and a number of followers with various actions, plus a lot more "big" calculations.

4e definitely sped this up, so rounds go by at a much faster pace. There's also a lot more stuff that encourages movement in the combat, so the combats feel a little more frenetic, and faster paced.

The actual length of time it takes to play out the combat isn't always much shorter, but I don't think this is a bad thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Scribble,

I am not disagreeing with you about the changed pace of combat.

When the designers first started talking, they admitted that combat needed to be speeded up, one would imagine based upon the regular complaints about how long a single fight took. Of course, there were lots of complaints about how long a single round took as well.

The designers then came up with a system (which we have in 4e) where the rounds were speeded up significantly, which speeded up combat overall.

But since everyone had all of these "per-encounter" powers, fast combat makes the characters seem kinda hollow. After all, if most of your "per encounters" didn't get used, what was the point of them? Where was the attrition? The edge-of-your-seat-iness? So, they inflated the numbers to make combats last longer.

This is a direct consequence of (1) moving to a per-encounter attrition model, and (2) moving to an all-combat-powers character model. Really, put those two things in place, and there is little else that you can do. Encounters must last long enough to allow for attrition to occur, and they must last long enough for all of those combat powers to come into play.

"Adventures" consisting "of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another" is a very good description of the result. Even skill challenges, by the book, are means to allow you to move swiftly through anything that isn't a combat. Things like traps should be played as though they were combats. Simulation should in no way get in the way of combat powers -- find a way to narrate it so it makes sense, or don't worry about it making sense, but do not declare that a power doesn't work because its application defies your sense of realism.

It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".

You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed. It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Scribble,

I am not disagreeing with you about the changed pace of combat.

When the designers first started talking, they admitted that combat needed to be speeded up, one would imagine based upon the regular complaints about how long a single fight took. Of course, there were lots of complaints about how long a single round took as well.

The designers then came up with a system (which we have in 4e) where the rounds were speeded up significantly, which speeded up combat overall.

Which is the part I think people misunderstand. They sped up combats to make them less static, not to get them quickly out of the way.

But since everyone had all of these "per-encounter" powers, fast combat makes the characters seem kinda hollow. After all, if most of your "per encounters" didn't get used, what was the point of them? Where was the attrition? The edge-of-your-seat-iness? So, they inflated the numbers to make combats last longer.

Was this explained somewhere? Do you have a quote indicating this?

This is a direct consequence of (1) moving to a per-encounter attrition model, and (2) moving to an all-combat-powers character model. Really, put those two things in place, and there is little else that you can do. Encounters must last long enough to allow for attrition to occur, and they must last long enough for all of those combat powers to come into play.

Or it was designed from the standpoint that people did enjoy combat, and didn't want the combats to be glossed over, just made more interesting.

"Adventures" consisting "of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another" is a very good description of the result.

In your opinion. Just like any edition of the game, you can go from combat to combat, or combat to exploration, narration, whatever. The choice is yours. You can also design encounters that happen a lot more quickly based on the challenge level.

Even skill challenges, by the book, are means to allow you to move swiftly through anything that isn't a combat.

By the book? Page number?

I think you're reading your own impressions in there quite a bit. For me skill challenges give a good way to allow the players to use their stats to effect the game outside of combat. They aren't a way to ignore anything non combat related. If you're not using them to good effect... Well sorry for you?

Things like traps should be played as though they were combats.

Which makes a lot of sense. Traps done this way become more dynamic. They aren't just a single die roll anymore.

Simulation should in no way get in the way of combat powers -- find a way to narrate it so it makes sense, or don't worry about it making sense, but do not declare that a power doesn't work because its application defies your sense of realism.

The same as D&D has pretty much always been. D&D has always had characters doing unrealistic things for the sake of fun. That's kind of part of the point.

It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".

You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed. It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.RC

Again, no more so then D&D has ever been.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Edit: Nevermind. Scribble said it better.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Again, no more so then D&D has ever been.

This I disagree with. Take a random 1E "hackfest" dungeon module and look through it. You might find little more than description, area contents, and statistics for the inhabitants. This certainly makes the adventure all about combat right?

Wrong. Barebones adventures like these didn't have "combat scenes", "skill challenge scenes", and instructions on which group each encounter belonged to. The percentage of play spent on combat could vary wildly from group to group using the same material.

Play was not chopped into such distinctive chunks. Skill use could turn into combat which could turn into a chase, which could lead to evasion followed by more combat.

The presentation of the 4E adventure including instructions on what type of encounter each one is supposed to be make it easy to pinpoint the combat/non-combat content (as intended) by page count.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In your opinion.

(Shrug)

If you like, why not? In my (educated) opinion, then.

I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well. I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.

You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This I disagree with. Take a random 1E "hackfest" dungeon module and look through it. You might find little more than description, area contents, and statistics for the inhabitants. This certainly makes the adventure all about combat right?

Wrong. Barebones adventures like these didn't have "combat scenes", "skill challenge scenes", and instructions on which group each encounter belonged to. The percentage of play spent on combat could vary wildly from group to group using the same material.

These supposed "combat scenes" you describe in 4E are nothing of the sort. The encounter areas I am reading in WotC produced adventures contain information about the setting of the area, motivations of the NPCs, advice on what happens if the players decide to talk instead of fight, and much more that any old "hackfest" dungeon module. The percentage of play spent on 4E combat can vary widely from group to group using the same material.

Play was not chopped into such distinctive chunks. Skill use could turn into combat which could turn into a chase, which could lead to evasion followed by more combat.

The same is true of 4E.

The presentation of the 4E adventure including instructions on what type of encounter each one is supposed to be make it easy to pinpoint the combat/non-combat content (as intended) by page count.

Wrong. Flat out. They are called Encounter Areas. And the 4E DMG points out quite clearly that not all encounters need to end in combat. Each group's approach to these encounters is still intact. There is no more instruction to make an encounter a fight now than there was in 1E-2E-3E.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well. I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.

You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.

YMMV.

Mine does obviously. You can play 4E in the same style you have always played D&D. Or you can use the new tools presented to do things differently. Follow the link in my sig to the conversion of the 2E module WGR1. You can see how I've taken the old convention of the random encounter that happened by chance regardless of player action and turned it into a Skill Challenge that allows players to use their wits and their character's skills to effect the occurance of random encounters. The format of the style of challenge I created is not that of the DMG exactly, but follows a style similar to that presented in WotC adventure P2.

 

[billd91]

Was this explained somewhere? Do you have a quote indicating this?

There was but I recall it being about getting the monsters to use their all their powers rather than not be alive long enough to deploy them all. I don't have the citation, though.

 

[Scribble]

(Shrug)

If you like, why not? In my (educated) opinion, then.

OI'd go with biased- but hey.

I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well.

Yep- a fun edition of the D&D line. I'll agree with that one!

I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.

You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.

And if you want to play a game of checkers with a jackrabbit you better not own a purple tie!

Pointless metaphors aside, if 4e isn't your preferred edition that's cool- I couldn't really care any less if you like it or not. If the rules don't work for you, that's cool- but don't insinuate that I'm either "pretending" or forcing the rules to work for what I want, or that I'm missing some sort of hidden design agenda you've managed to spot, or that the rules have moved away from "the true way the game should work" in some way. For me, the game plays the same way it's always played, with new tools to enhance the experience at the table.

Everyone has their own way of interpreting what the rules mean in the game. Frankly the way you interpret a lot of the rules seems weird and alien to me, but to each his own.