Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Votan]

From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):

1. Assassin (!)

That's really nifty. What level did (s)he die or retire at?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The "imbalance corrected" here in 4e is the variation in ability among players. The influence of skill that seems not just permitted but encouraged in the combat game is clearly not desired elsewhere.

I disagree. Skill Challenges encourage players to think of innovative ways to use their character's skills to their fullest. For those with experience, like my players, their is no cue from me about how to solve a problem in character. For players without experience it can help them realize how to use their character's skills to solve a problem.

AD&D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- and in other undertakings.

So do more modern editions. The difference is that there is now a framework that determines what capabilities your character possesses instead of relying solely on player skill. You formulate the plan, your character's skills determine whether said plan will succeed.

So, the DM in 4e does not set the factors for a skill challenge? The DMG reads, "set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. ... Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved."

Again, it's not a matter of "skills". Come on -- you tell me how the DM setting the difficulty is any different from calling for "skill checks" or other rolls without the 4e formalism. All your +5 in Balderdash says is that you're a better choice to roll than some other player. The DM dictates where your chance falls between 0% and 100% (probably pretty shakily, with the "x successes before y failures" rule).

I was trying to draw parallels between editions, not mark differences.

The big difference is that this abstraction has taken priority -- if not over completely, to the point that it does not matter what your supposed "plan" is. All that matters is the raw numbers.

Bogus. You've not read a skill challenge at all then. Your plan influences the outcome of a skill challenge directly.

It is obviously at its worst with a pre-designed formula (as in a published scenario). Could a DM instead first look at a plan during play and then come up with a skill challenge that roughly maps to it? Sure, but why impose the arbitrary scheme in the first place? Why force the sound and the silly into the same probabilistic mold?

As a measure of reward for overcoming a challenge. Not everything should be a Skill Challenge. And I have seen some published ones that shouldn't be. I've also seen some published ones that are BAD. But I see the potential in the structure and don't find them to be the least bit "silly."

The answer is that "all that matters is the raw numbers" is the purpose. Give the players enough options to pick the best numbers, and -- in combination with the "character build" system -- you should end up with about the same most of the time.

You could say the same about the game of Dungeons and Dragons over time. But with the right spirit put towards the game it becomes something more.

Great. After your complaint, you not only make it so that in fact there is nothing the players can do to avoid with certainty the certainty of not merely an encounter but an attack: ... but (although this is unclear) you might also impose automatic surprise each time until: It's fine that you have constructed a game system that you like. As the grand finale of that particular attack on Gygax's game design -- on the basis of a Second Edition work with which (quite poignantly) he had nothing to do -- it is just absurd.

I'm not trying to attack 1E here. I noted a specific module. I didn't claim it to be indicative of 1E AD&D. There is no auto-surprise, just no chance of surprise after enough successes. And I've already explained what I've meant by Attack. What do the bandits in your games do? Deliver daisies to the adventures and ask to be friends? No, they attack. Whether that becomes combat or not depends on what you (the players and DM) do.

YOU designed that "skill challenge", did you not?

Yes.

Whatever my view of how much common sense the result demonstrates, I do not see how you can claim that AD&D somehow prevented you from exercising just as much judgment, or even from constructing such a complicated sub-system.

I did not claim that 1E prevented this. I was drawing parallels. I did claim that the particular passage in the module seemed to give you no such options, but as you pointed out the advice was not direct in the text, but implicit in the system.

The great bottom-line bafflement is just how you see the "skill challenge" as directed at the same design goals as AD&D1.

It's obviously not the same design goal, it has a different structure. But it can net the same result. Either method can be used to good or ill effect.

I could go into detail, with your concoction as an example, but I think that would be almost as tiresome as a "skill challenge" itself. You can consider for yourself:

What skills does it challenge?

My skill challenge challenges the players' skill of caution. It tests their skill in ingenuity to solve a problem using the tools at their character's disposal. And it tests the characters' skill as to whether the player's plans will succeed or fail.

Given that you've already gone through a Skill Challenge, why would you then allow the PCs to use those same skills to avoid the situation?

The difference is that they would be using those skills in an immediate confrontation. I believe said skills would be harder to use once bandits are bearing down on you and your stuff, but I wouldn't rule out their use entirely.

I don't have a horse in the edition war race, I am just a guy who likes to game and is strapped for time. So how is the time and effort justified for writing up and playing a skill challenge like this if, upon failure, the PCs can talk their way out of combat? Why not just listen to the description of PC precautions, figure out a reasonable probability on the fly, and then adjudicate according to the PCs' reactions?

Why have chances at all for random encounters if you're strapped for time? This skill challenge takes only as much time as the players devote to it. And at their discretion. If players are instigating the challenge or ignoring the danger wantonly one would have to believe they are doing so because that is the way they enjoy playing. Why not just do this without a skill challenge? I agree, if you don't want to spend the time creating them, then don't. They're hardly necessary to play the game. But I believe they have gotten a bad rap and can be a fun way to adjudicate matters in the game.

And there is no edition war going on here despite how much Ariosto is trying to convince people I hate 1E. It is my 2nd favorite edition of D&D to date and I've never had any hateful feelings towards it.

 

[bardolph]

I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play. One can recruit a thief as henchman, unless one is a paladin. Then again, "should any player want to be one," a hobbit fighter/thief might be more attractive than a level-capped fighter.

(Note that halflings don't get the one-level lift that dwarves and elves get in AD&D. Opportunities to exceed the old limit even with high strength are so limited that only tallfellows with an 18 on the dice start able to reach 5th. For them to reach 6th, or for stouts to reach 5th, requires somehow exceeding the racial maximum!)

Given the same x.p., a thief is a level ahead of a fighter at low levels, or three ahead at high levels. That doesn't make it generally as "powerful" in any clear way -- and I don't think it any coincidence that it's the one class in which all the standard demihumans except half-orcs -- who substitute assassin -- get unlimited advancement. (Half-elves also get druid.)

The basic problem is that the thief's functions tend to be Plan B.

You can give a thief of any level a 100% chance to pick a lock, simply by allowing repeated attempts until success (greater expertise translating thus into greater speed). It's still preferable to open a lock with the key.

A thief can climb a wall with a chance of falling and breaking his neck -- or anyone can do it more safely with proper equipment (such as rope).

Why try to remove a trap, at risk of getting hurt, when you can instead set it off while clear? Why not bypass it altogether? Obviously, there are sometimes going to be significant answers to those questions -- but too often, among poor players, it's just, "Duh. I dunno."

For them, the thief was created. Well, actually I think it was created for players who said, "If only we could find out that a locked chest is full of copper before we go to the trouble of hauling it back to town."

You mean without removing the hinges? "Yeah, that takes time -- even more if the hinges are hidden -- and makes noise. Smashing is sometimes faster, but leaves the chest useless. And those metal chests are a real drag. Then there are the occasional locked doors and portcullises. And traps! Poisoned needles and spring blades are bad enough, but damn poison gas!"

A magic-user can cast knock, and a cleric can cast find traps. "Yeah, but those are second level spells. The m-u in particular has a limited supply, and none at all before third level." The supply is even more limited in AD&D than in the older game.

"Right, so it would be neat if we could get a little edge in that department." If we come across three chests, and 3rd-level spell-casters can deal with only one, then about a 33% chance with some other method would be about the same ...

Wow. You've pretty much nailed it.

 

[Remathilis]

Minor nitpick: Isn't a Thief's backstrike damage (with a longsword) defined as 1d8 x 2 rather than 2d8?

Its ambiguous in 1e, but Basic/BECMI and 2e imply you roll the die twice, not double the result.

 

[Treebore]

Not to try to be a Grognard, but the old rules hold up surprising well, if played as intended. It's remarkable how nic the system runs with a lot fewer pages (abd how wonderful the 1st Ed DMG is as a rulebook).

Sure, there have been some nice advances since then but it is interesting how robust the underlying system is . . . and how easy to house rule. The higher complexity of later systems actually makes it easier to knock things out of balance. The high threat level makes it hard for any character to really try and do everything themselves and there are some really nice options.

Best of all, the classes seem to be fun to play and the focus was on that much more than making surte every character was equal. In that respect, I still think we could learn a lot from the older system.

I reread my 1st Ed books tonight and it really is surprising how fast it is to read and how easily things fit together.

Over all I agree. By and large I enjoyed playing it again, but there are definite tweaks I will do to it, pulling from other games I have played over the years, to make it much more enjoyable for me, and I am pretty sure it will be much more enjoyable for those who play it with me.

I agree the focus is not for the classes to be equal in combat, it was for them to be best at what niche they filled. Personally I think that is a good idea, since all our real lives are about being as good and successful as we can be in our own little niche. So I like it better than the "Master of all trades" approach so many games take today. Personally I am tired of games that allow my PC to be the superman. I much prefer having the limited range of abilities and resources and see what I can do within my areas of expertise.

 

[bardolph]

From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):

1. Assassin (!)
2. Magic-user
3. Fighter
4. Cleric
5. Fighter
6. Cleric
7. Magic-user
8. Magic-user/Druid*
9. Fighter/Thief
10. Illusionist

Cool. You're experience was different from mine. To be honest, I didn't spend a great deal of time in 1e before moving on to 2e (which I thought was a big improvement).

I saw a few campaigns where the DM wanted to start the game at a higher level (5, 7, or 9), and at these levels, it definitely makes a lot more sense to play a wizard.

However, I still found thieves to be pretty useless even as high as 7th level. Of course, it was almost guaranteed that a thief would have obtained boots (or cloak) of elvenkind or a ring of invisibility by this point, but it added insult to injury to realize that a ranger with the same equipment was far more useful.

I also had several friends who somehow managed to level their wizards up to 7th level or higher from the start, but in all of these cases they were small gaming groups (3 people max, including the DM), so there was probably much less pressure on these characters to "pull their weight" while slogging through these levels.

I'm surprised about your Assassin. Just out of curiosity, how did you adjudicate the Assassination table?

 

[Ariosto]

You formulate the plan, your character's skills determine whether said plan will succeed.

See, there's the problem with skill challenges in 4e: The plan determines nothing. It's just post-facto "narration", explicitly not meant to be any more than an excuse to let a skill play a part in the challenge. At best, it's a plausible rationale for whatever the dice dictate.

My skill challenge challenges the players' skill of caution. It tests their skill in ingenuity to solve a problem using the tools at their character's disposal.

If you really want to test players' ingenuity at solving a problem, then -- I know this is a really wild idea! -- let them actually solve the problem.

Just play it out like anything else: Here's what you perceive; what will you do? Adjudicate on the basis of the particular circumstances.

The reason to mess with that straightforward process is definitely not to get the same result -- because the process is the key result!

And there is no edition war going on here despite how much Ariosto is trying to convince people I hate 1E.

Huh?? Wrong.

I have tried to convince you that how much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" has nothing to do with whether AD&D1 was designed for game balance. How much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Lanefan]

That's really nifty. What level did (s)he die or retire at?

He ended up almost all the way through 10th level in a very slow-advancing game; and the only reason he retired was because the campaign ended. Had he been just about any other class he'd have been higher, but Assassins kinda ground to a halt after 9th. He started either at raw 1st or partway through 1st.

I'm surprised about your Assassin. Just out of curiosity, how did you adjudicate the Assassination table?

Didn't have to use it much, truth be told; which meant than when I did need it, I looked it up and figured it out the hard way. He was usually played very much like a Thief who could fight, and the party accepted him because by the time they found out he was an Assassin instead of a Fighter he'd become senior member of the party...and not because he killed off the others!

Also, he was a Dwarf. A long time ago we really eased off on the class-race level limits, and pretty much anyone could go as high as their abilities took them in Thief or Assassin.

Lanefan

 

[bardolph]

See, there's the problem with skill challenges in 4e: The plan determines nothing. It's just post-facto "narration", explicitly not meant to be any more than an excuse to let a skill play a part in the challenge. At best, it's a plausible rationale for whatever the dice dictate.

One possibility is to present the skill challenge without revealing which skills are important. The Players choose their actions, then the DM has them roll skill checks whenever appropriate and conducts the number crunching secretly throughout the challenge.

This is similar to a DM who keeps monster armor class and hit points secret during a combat.

If you really want to test players' ingenuity at solving a problem, then -- I know this is a really wild idea! -- let them actually solve the problem.

This sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Depends on the nature of the challenge. For example, you can't ask players to pick a lock for you at the table.

Also, it's reasonable to expect that the PC will know things that the player doesn't. For example, History, Arcana, Insight, Perception.

Even for something like Diplomacy, it might be difficult for a shy player to represent a character with a silver tongue and good public speaking skills. This is especially true for younger players.

Just play it out like anything else: Here's what you perceive; what will you do? Adjudicate on the basis of the particular circumstances.

The same held true for combat. However, as combat rules became more codified and streamlined over the editions, running combat became more smooth and consistent.

Skill challenges are simply a framework for making non-combat encounters run more smoothly and consistently.

Example: the PCs decide to sneak inside a local noble's house to steal a letter intended for the king. Rather than playing the robbery as a dungeon crawl using maps, tokens, and monster stats, you can run this as a skill challenge. Very handy when the DM isn't in the mood to gen up a map in the middle of a session.

 

[Ariosto]

One possibility is to present the skill challenge without revealing which skills are important.

Right. Let's play "guessing game". After all, it doesn't really matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?

"Mischief moves somewhere near and I must blast it with my magic!"
"First you are swathed head to foot in the intestines of fresh killed owls."
"We go to the image expander; there we will explode the ghost to the macroid dimension."
"Until work has reached its previous stage nympharium privileges are denied to all."
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."

"I rolled an 18!"
"For what?"
"How should I know?"

This is similar to a DM who keeps monster armor class and hit points secret during a combat.

No, it's not. It's similar to a DM who keeps secret the fact that he's "fudging" or "railroading". Or a DM who's so stoned he has no more idea of what's going on than the players have.

For example, you can't ask players to pick a lock for you at the table.

I can, but I won't. So, make a roll against "lock picking skill" or whatever. What's this got to do with 4e "skill challenges"?

Also, it's reasonable to expect that the PC will know things that the player doesn't. For example, History, Arcana, Insight, Perception.

What, you think the character -- which in fact does not exist -- knows numbers on a character sheet but the player does not? [/joke] Just tell the player,

"Be warned that tales told have it that this being possesses powers which make him nearly undefeatable! Accounts relate that it is quite unlikely that any adventurers will ever find the chamber where the demi-lich Acererak lingers, for the passages and rooms of the Tomb are fraught with terrible traps, poison gases, and magical protections. Furthermore, the demi-lich has so well hidden his lair, that even those who avoid the pitfalls will not be likely to locate their true goal. So only large and well-prepared parties of the bravest and strongest should even consider the attempt, and if they do locate the Tomb, they must be prepared to fail."

Or whatever. Again, what has this to do with 4e "skill challenges"?

Even for something like Diplomacy, it might be difficult for a shy player to represent a character with a silver tongue and good public speaking skills.

But he is a player, right? A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS player? So he's not too shy to turn into a cross between Sun Tzu and Patton as soon as the DM says, "Roll initiative."

It's not an audition for Masterpiece Theater. I am not eager to sit through a thespian performance by someone whose fantasy is to have social skills -- any more than I want Fat Ninja Boy to demonstrate his character's martial arts technique. I just want to know what in blazes he's talking about. Is he diplomatically offering a large sum of money for a little favor, or is he diplomatically asking for a handout just because ... well, just because? It makes a difference.

If a dice-roll is called for, then the circumstances are going to affect the probabilities of different outcomes.

Again, what has this to do with a 4e "skill challenge"?

I've been playing games with "skill systems" -- starting in my case with Traveller and RuneQuest -- over a span of 30 years. They had nothing to do with a 4e "skill challenge" and I want nothing to do with it.