Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garmorn]

I'm surprised how many people don't think they were trying for balance. Different xp charts by class, classes that start crappy and get better, nonhumans that get more bonuses but have level caps, etc all look like signs of balance.

I mean, it's certainly not the same standard of balance that some systems are held to, but it doesn't mean that some attempt wasn't made.

I can tell you why I did not think he was not trying for balance. (Note: DID not do, this thread as taught me alot.) When I first changed over from Fantasy Trip to AD&D there where so many holes in it for our playing style that house rules just to make it playable where needed. This is what I saw for 10 or more years with each product getting worst, not better. I never would have thought that a campaign was balanced on characters moving in and out of the group. Having classes balanced over a campaign was also something I never considered, after all how long was a campaign when people moved in and left every 18 months. (Books don't read that way.) My group from the start was more story oriented from the start. This led to a completly different view then what lots of you seem to have had. Remember the youngest player (me) that influnced our style in 81 when I switched was 23, another big different.

 

[Ariosto]

Garmorn, note that The Fantasy Trip (one of my all-time favorite games) had radically different origins. Melee and Wizard were published first as competitive games of gladiatorial combat.

4E is probably the closest D&D has come to that kind of balance, but (as far as I know) it was designed from the start with the default assumption of teams of players fighting against DM-controlled monsters.

 

[Garmorn]

Garmorn, note that The Fantasy Trip (one of my all-time favorite games) had radically different origins. Melee and Wizard were published first as competitive games of gladiatorial combat.

4E is probably the closest D&D has come to that kind of balance, but (as far as I know) it was designed from the start with the default assumption of teams of players fighting against DM-controlled monsters.

Yea, I know the orgin of Fantasy trip bough both Melee and Wizard and played them before getting Fantasy Trip. The change from that to AD&D was a lot. We eventually changed over to Rolemaster. I have fond memories of all of the games but it did give me a completely different impression about AD&D at the time that stayed with me until some of these treads 'educated' about AD&D.

 

[Hussar]

Yep.

However, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what Hussar was claiming.

Which was precisely my point.

However, no one actually needs those books to play 3e. OTOH, most people DID feel the need to have tome sized books of house rules to play 1e. To the point where few (including the primary author) actually played 1e as written.

*Yes, I know YOU in the back did. Sit back down. An exception does not disprove anything*

Sure, you can add in PHB2 to your game. But, the game certainly didn't require it. As far as house ruling 3e, ask RC about his tome sometime.

My point wasn't that no one ever house ruled 3e. My point was that 3e was balanced enough at the design stage to not need extra work at the table to be a balanced game at most levels. It wasn't until about 14th level plus that things got seriously wonky.

In the "Sweet Spot" of 3e, virtually no house rules were needed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

My point wasn't that no one ever house ruled 3e. My point was that 3e was balanced enough at the design stage to not need extra work at the table to be a balanced game at most levels. It wasn't until about 14th level plus that things got seriously wonky.

In the "Sweet Spot" of 3e, virtually no house rules were needed.

When I first started running 3E, after a reasonably brief learning/familiarization period, I had no house rules. I had a few ideas I thought might be needed but never were. Really, even after the PC's were well past the sweet spot the game was totally by the book. What complaints I had with the system were made fairly thin and remote - the most important and meaningful changes IMO had been incorporated. But, it WAS the higher level play that started to bring out my dissatisfaction with the system in general. While 3E play was plenty of fun, I DID want it to "feel" more like 1E/2E as I and my players had run it (house rules and all). I then continued to look closer and closer at the 3E system while I was neither running nor playing a game and THAT was when I decided that for the RPG experience _I_ want, 3E was not the best means of providing it. 1E/2E was the better basis to work from - but it DOES then need "tweaking" to be what I want it to be.

 

[Ariosto]

Here is what Hussar actually wrote:

3e had issues, particularly at higher levels, but, for the most part allowed you to run a very large number of different campaigns with vastly different dming styles, all without becoming a train wreck. The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns.

I don't think the same can be said of AD&D. It contained far too many presumptions on how your world would look. Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.

Love that double standard.

"The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns." But somehow, when it came to AD&D ...

"Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there." What? Shouldn't those books likewise show how robust AD&D was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns?

And with AD&D, you could do it yourself, to your own specifications, without having to rely on a "pro's" packaged solutions.

What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of at least so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.

 

[pawsplay]

Here is what Hussar actually wrote:


Love that double standard.

"The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns." But somehow, when it came to AD&D ...

"Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there." What? Shouldn't those books likewise show how robust AD&D was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns?

And with AD&D, you could do it yourself, to your own specifications, without having to rely on a "pro's" packaged solutions.

What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of at least so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

 

[Witty Comeback]

What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of at least so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.

Do you think that every optional gaming book published was necessarily designed to fix balance? I think that many of them were designed to expand options - not to 'fix' anything, but to give new flavor. Take OA for example, which I don't believe was introduced in 3rd edition .

 

[keterys]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

*stares*

*blinks*

*rereads*

Wow.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.

I would have thought the double standard obvious.

The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust": A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.

Unless, of course, you imagine that a publshed book is somehow necessarily better than the binder of houserules at creating the sort of campaign one might want, or that selecting between those published options does not somehow constitute a plethora of houserules.


RC