Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Raven Crowking]

What has been demonstrated in many fields is that one can plan for emergent properties AFTER those properties have been identified. You've got the cart before the horse. If game balance is an emergent property, then you would have to play and play until you reached that balance and then reverse engineer backwards to create a game which would result in that property.

Luckily, Gary Gygax had games going back at least to H.G. Wells upon which D&D rules were based. Because there was no desire to slaughter "sacred cows" that worked, in many cases Gygax was using game principles that had been tested for decades or longer. Hence the way AC works prior to 3e.

Also, Hussar, while it is true that Gygax & co. had intentions as to how the game would be played, their intentions were far less restrictive than those of the 4e designers, and their game far less restrictive than that of the 4e design. Tight "balance" of the 4e type can only occur by restricting emergent choices that would otherwise throw that "balance" off.



RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

Also, Hussar, while it is true that Gygax & co. had intentions as to how the game would be played, their intentions were far less restrictive than those of the 4e designers, and their game far less restrictive than that of the 4e design. Tight "balance" of the 4e type can only occur by restricting emergent choices that would otherwise throw that "balance" off.

I generally refer to this as the "rules space" earlier D&D has that makes the system flexible to many play-styles and rules tweaks by the participants desiring to "flavor" various aspects of the mechanics to certain ends. I think this fits well with the emergent balance you're talking about.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits. An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that. Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll. Your chances of rolling a vorpal blade or hammer of thunderbolts are miniscule.

One of the important aspects of early edition balance was the assumed lethality of the system: It was anticipated that players would be starting new characters on a what would seem an insanely frequent basis at most game tables today. In that environment, probability-based balance was effective.

Looking such a system through a modern lens can be a little like saying that craps isn't balanced because rolling a 7 is better than rolling a 12. Why would the designers ever let the guy rolling a 7 be so much better than the guy rolling a 12?

Similarly, I believe there were a few weird areas where balance was thrown out the window to achieve some semblence of historical accuracy. Take the weapons and armors, for example. Gygax seemed to really love this stuff (...check out the Appendix in Unearthed Arcana on pole-arm nomenclature, for example). Hence, I don't think there was the same effort to balance the equipment tables.

Which, personally, I'm fine with. The belief that every equipment option needs to be equally viable seems strange to me. It assumes that the only reason equipment exists is for the PCs to use it. (In reality, of course, the DM will be responsible for equipping hundreds or thousands of characters compared to any given player. And for designing those NPCs, sub-optimal or situation-specific equipment may be extremely useful for any number of reasons.)

 

[bardolph]

Clearly, as has been demonstrated in many fields, one can plan for emergent properties, and one can safeguard against other emergent properties. The "balance" that 4e largely has, that 1e certainly has far less of, is safeguards against certain types of "balance" that the designers viewed as undesireable. For example, the balance that was promoted in the earliest versions of the game.

Both 4e and 1e attempt to restrict the emergent balance into channels that the authors/designers thought "fun". 4e's definition of "fun" is just far narrower than that of 1e.

I think you're romanticizing 1e. Just because AD&D was full of horrible inconsistent flaws doesn't mean it was designed for "emergent properties." It just means that the rules weren't playtested enough (or even at all, in some cases).

AD&D was great because it was a roleplaying game competing against a field of boardgames and miniature wargames. AD&D was successful because it invoked the imagination in ways that other tabletop games could not. We were willing to put up with all the imbalances and inconsistencies because, in the end, it was worth it.

When I discovered other RPG systems outside of AD&D, I found every single one of them to be better. However, I stuck with AD&D because the quality and quantity of published modules made it WAY easier to run than any of these other systems.

AD&D succeeded in spite of its design, not because of it.

I bet I could list more playtesters for RCFG than for 4e if I liked. What do you think that would prove? The answer is simple: The number of listed playtesters simply isn't relevant without other data.

So, are you seriously contending that the AD&D player's handbook had more playtesting before publishing than its 4e counterpart?

Or are you trying to suggest that "not enough data" exists for me to claim that 4e has had more playtesting?

Or is this another one of your straw men?

And what's RCFG? The Regional Computer Forensics Group?

I will clarify. Quantity does not always equal quality. It really doesn't matter if a system has thousands of playtesters or not. What is important is the results of the overall playtesting effort. A system requiring major overhauls and patches post release has experienced playtest fail. A larger credits section just means there are even more people who either were not listened to, or should be ashamed of themselves.

I don't think any shame is needed or deserved. 4e as a whole runs extremely well, even considering the shortcomings of the Stealth and Skill Challenge systems (which have been corrected). In my personal experience, D&D 4e runs smoother and faster by a long shot than any other roleplaying game I've played in the last 25 years.

And if we want to take quality over quantity, I'll take personal experience every single time.

 

[Ariosto]

Just because AD&D was full of horrible inconsistent flaws doesn't mean it was designed for "emergent properties." It just means that the rules weren't playtested enough (or even at all, in some cases).

However, that it was designed for what it was explicitly designed for DOES mean that it was designed for "emergent properties", if I understand what RC means. Just because bardolph doesn't like something does not make it objectively a "horrible inconsistent flaw". There are inconsistencies, and cumbersome bits, and Gygax himself called some things flaws.

I reckon there are things that RC would call flaws. I do not see him using a judgment of their flawed status as a basis for his assessment of design intent for "emergent properties".

 

[bardolph]

However, that it was designed for what it was explicitly designed for DOES mean that it was designed for "emergent properties", if I understand what RC means.

Maybe some examples would help. In what areas was 1e designed for emergent properties, and how did the design succeed in these areas?

Just because bardolph doesn't like something does not make it objectively a "horrible inconsistent flaw". There are inconsistencies, and cumbersome bits, and Gygax himself called some things flaws.

Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:

• 18/00
• Psionics
• Assassination Table
• Magic Missile vs Sleep
• Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
• The Thief (the entire class)
• Weapon vs Armor Class Table
• The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
• Leveling by Ritual Combat
• Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
• Why on earth does Armor class count down from 10?

Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.

We can also play a guessing game: how many bona fide PCs do you suppose actually learned and cast the "Cacodemon" spell before the Player's Handbook went to press? My guess: zero.

Don't get me wrong. I loved AD&D, mostly for its modules. While the Player's Handbook and DMG were silly (from a game design perspective), the Temple of Elemental Evil was a thing of beauty.

 

[Ariosto]

Having played for a few months in an AD&D campaign being run in constrained "adventure path" fashion, I find that the design is poorly suited to that. Some changes that I understand are somewhat popular in that mode (such as having everyone "level up" simultaneously rather than awarding x.p.) seem to me just the opposite of improvement. I have also seen how easily a DM who really does not know his stuff can make a hash of things -- and some glimpses of why.

An unbalanced mess is not necessarily the worst outcome, for it might at least be exciting.

Boredom is the worst outcome.

 

[Ariosto]

Bardolph, I am afraid that none of your examples leap out to me as "horribly inconsistent flaws". In most cases, it is quite obscure just what you mean. With what is this inconsistent? How is that horribly flawed?

Someone else might type, "Gnomes. Experience points for treasure. Experience points. Character classes. Levels. Hit dice. A bunch of weird kinds of dice. Dungeons. Dragons."

Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.

Uh, yeah ... and your point is ... ? It's not as if it was advertised (or commonly sought after) as sane and sensible rubbish!

That is altogether a different matter than whether or not it was designed for game balance.

Is Earthworm Jim or Super Mario World sane and sensible? Was it designed for game balance?

Also quite another matter is how much testing a product got. That may have some bearing on how successfully design goals are realized -- and some errors and omissions are so obvious that one might reasonably reverse-engineer an evaluation of play-testing (especially of critical "blind" testing) -- but it does not speak to the specific goals themselves (other than the likes of meeting a deadline).

 

[Chainsaw]

Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:

• 18/00
• Psionics
• Assassination Table
• Magic Missile vs Sleep
• Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
• The Thief (the entire class)
• Weapon vs Armor Class Table
• The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
• Leveling by Ritual Combat
• Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
• Why on earth does Armor class count down from 10?

Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.

Eh, I'm not sure these examples are as obvious to everyone else as they are to you - go post this list of 'nonsensical rubbish' on a 1E board and you'll get volumes of explanation that you might find interesting and useful (if this isn't just a drive-by, of course).

 

[Bullgrit]

I think you're romanticizing 1e.

I think a lot of people here do this.

Bullgrit