Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Ariosto]

Then, there are the folks who try to prove how "simple" 3e Attacks Of Opportunity are ... by explaining them.

 

[howandwhy99]

This looks like a pretty active discussion. Is it possible for someone to outline the different types of balance people are talking about? I know there are multiple different kinds and probably multiple different definitions. But any attempt at a clear outline would be appreciated.

 

[Garmorn]

This looks like a pretty active discussion. Is it possible for someone to outline the different types of balance people are talking about? I know there are multiple different kinds and probably multiple different definitions. But any attempt at a clear outline would be appreciated.

From my prespective we are talking about to types. In very loose terms they are: Level balance and Campaign balance.

Level balance it where each character is suppose to be balance with every other character at the same level with the same wealth. 3.x tried this and came close at first. 4e did a better job at the cost of having a very tight balance between characters and being harder to house rule on the character level.

1e and 2e where balance between classes when compared over the course of the campaign life it was designed for.

The first is meant to give equal power and spot light at all levels and the second is meant to have it switch back and forth. The first is great for pick games, tournaments, and where the campaign might or might not last even close to the design length. The second is meant to place different classes in the lime light at different times, allows more variety between classes and a narrower spot light. (i.e on one or two classes are in the lime light at a time.).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

ADDICT does not actually take 20 pages to explain the necessary basics.

No it doesn't. When you drop all the footnotes indicating where the particular rule comes from and reformat it (which I did) I was able to boil it down to 6 pages.

It takes "20 pages" to present DM Prata's house rules.

Well I maybe I'm just easily impressed then. Everything that might ostensibly be qualified as a house rule since it wasn't graven in 1E stone as gospel seemed to be backed up with as authoratative citation as was possible.

And think about all those cites. He's trying to figure out precisely how it works and why, and look at what it took for him to do that. Even if in your eyes he failed to accomplish the task how about you show the less-than 6 pages of rules that explains it all?

Also: If you started with the Advanced books because, being all of 11 years old and having absolutely no experience at all, you were obviously too cool for Basic instruction ... and you think that puts you in an authoritative position to tell those of us who had been playing since before the DMG that if we don't "use everything" or go "perfectly by the book" that we are not playing AD&D ... or even if you think E. Gary Gygax was in such a position ...

My apologies. I didn't think my gaming resume was required for participation here. Allow me to correct your mistaken suppostions about myself.

I was born in 1961. I started as a player with Holmes basic in... 1976 I think it was. It's all a blur these days, it was so long ago. As he acquired them I believe my DM added rules from additional, sources - the three little books plus Greyhawk and Blackmoor, The Strategic Review, Dragon, maybe a little from White Dwarf. We stepped up into AD&D as each of the three core books was published. It was maybe a year or more after that when I finally got my own PH. I graduated high school in 1979. I probably started running my own game as a DM in 1981 or '82. The gaming group I was in had merged with another and at a few games we had as many as 12 players around the table. It was certainly mid-late 80's that I actually decided to try and run a game By The Book as mentioned in previous posts. Though that little experiment failed at least I succeeded in convincing everyone I was gaming with that the house-ruled combat system we HAD been using was every bit as inadequate to the task as what I (and everyone else in the group too) had been unable to piece together from the books themselves. I'm proud to say I also cured them of some other bad house rules in favor of more by-the-book stuff. Hopefully that will suffice as credentials for you. If you need more let me know.

As for telling you personally what you should play or how that would be silly. Though it SHOULD go without saying, all I can do is provide my opinion; tell you how _I_ perceive certain things, how _I_ handle them or how _I_ think they should be handled. I have no particular fear of contrary views. Any perception on your behalf that I'm playing the part of the annoying know-it-all must be accidental and even if it weren't you should IGNORE it.

Amscray.

As a moderator if you feel I have no business airing my views in this or any thread; if you think I've stepped over the line of acceptible posting behavior you are free to suspend or revoke my account here.

 

[Filcher]

In my opinion, the racial level limitations indicate a desire for game balance. As do differing HP by class and varying requirements for XP/level.

Edit: If memory serves, there were class-specific magic items. While this might be a bit of a gray area, it also seem like an intent for a balanced game, to me.

 

[Ariosto]

Let's see, for a start ...

"My Level X character is equal to your Level X character." Even substituting the more accurate gauge of "X experience points", that's not really a big deal in old D&D. After all, the basic idea is that you should rack up more XP in the first place via skilled play than does some blunderer. And you're not forced to give up your levels just because a total newbie gets to experience starting from 1st (although you're probably not taking a Lord or Wizard on the same expedition!).

"My character is just as good as your character in combat." Nope. Magic-users and thieves are not fighters.

"A or B or C is true of The Party." The Party, as a constant entity, was not part of the design. Conan and the Grey Mouser might team up to rob the Tower of Eels one session, then part ways. Conan might then accompany Thongor, Elric, and Tyana and some of her pirates for a raid. Then, Thongor, Tyana and Mouser (with a shipload of Mingols) might join Fafhrd on Rime Isle.

"Each encounter should be 'level appropriate'" Not on the horizon. The players' estimation of risk and reward is key to the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Allow me to correct your mistaken suppostions about myself.

It is you who makes a mistaken supposition there!

As for telling you personally what you should play or how that would be silly.

Precisely the point.

As a moderator if you feel I have no business airing my views in this or any thread ...

You read WAY too much between the lines -- starting with whatever you arbitrarily decided "must" refer to you (even though it makes no sense). I was not thinking of you, Mr. Hat; there are a LOT of other people in the world who have made more notable impressions on me!

"Amscray" means, "Aw, don't be a pest, buzz off instead of bothering me." Obviously, if someone really, really wants to be not just a little pest but a big jerk, then such a light-hearted dismissal is not going to stop him.

 

[howandwhy99]

From my prespective we are talking about to types. In very loose terms they are: Level balance and Campaign balance.

Thank you. That does help. I still don't believe an RPG should be balanced as a simulation game or a storygame, but I understand the desires by those who want those games for it to be included.

From my perspective, enforced equality in altering the game world means no actions are rewarded with a greater ability to do so. Of course, no actions penalize this ability either. For example, if my Fighter PC has a sword and yours does not, must there be an absolute balance between us if the characters were to battle each other? If so, what's the point of having a sword? In another way, if we find a horde of treasure and decide to give it all to one PC, then shouldn't he or she be more powerful / influential in the game than the rest of us?

I don't care for the enforced balancing of PCs nor the removal of rewarding success with influence in the game. I understand the alternative means the potential for unbalanced influence over the game by different players, but I don't view the game as a simulation game and therefore needing such.

In terms of storygame balance, screen time for one, this is already built into almost every kind of D&D. Every PC gets their Round or Turn to act. They might sleep for 8 hours while those on watch do something else, but sleeping is their action. If it didn't have beneficial consequences, I wouldn't do it in game. I'm not really sure one can balance the degree of influence every single person has over a story, but I don't know all the new mechanics being created for storygames either.

I think of AD&D as a game of 1. attempting to navigate the world, 2. gaining greater influence within it, and 3. getting XP. The first is rewarded by simply getting to where you want to go, however metaphorical that may be. Not every PC may be able to do so the same way, but I don't see the game as placing each player in the exact same position. Actually, I see the game as attempting to have so much variation as to put every player in a different position.

In terms of gaining influence over the world I think of the game like any resource collecting game, get as much power as you can. However, the players are not necessarily in a competition with each other. That potential exists, but, in fact, the game actually increases the odds for personal success down all three paths when influential allies are included in one's endeavors. And the reverse holds true as well. The more powerful one's allies, the greater the odds are for success. Go it alone and you're asking for trouble. So sharing resources between players is rewarded by the game because it pays off in greater long term benefits. Not to mention it behooves players to assist inexperienced players in becoming better ones as this improves everyone's chances.

XP rewards are given out individually and tailored to Class. So a certain amount of negotiation between players is required in order for each to accomplish their own XP-rewarded goals. However, there is also a good deal of overlap between classes, a kind of synergy. When there is no synergy between classes, we get something like the Shadowrun Decker class. They have their game in between everyone else's. In a well designed game plenty of non-XP rewards exist to be won, which are useful trade offs in bartered negotiations between players deciding what to do.

Plus, XP rewards lead to greater influence over the game (Class levels are not commensurate with all such influence). The longer one plays without dying, the greater power a player gains. Quickly getting XP or resources is indicative of skillful play and more difficult and rewarding challenges can faced earlier. However, if a PC does die, the player starts over at the beginning. This hurts everyone, but it also increases the desire to keep everyone alive and becoming a more powerful ally. XP is logarithmic so new PCs gain in level faster than older ones. It actually takes as long to level a higher ranked PC as it does for a new 0XP character to reach the level they are leaving.

Needless to say, I think there exist a number of balancing mechanisms in the game that aren't accounted as "balance" anymore. But it does depend upon one's point of view on whether these count or not. The game is designed upon different tenets. It is understood there will be unequal player influence at any given point during the game. Every class has a different focus of play, realm of influence, and reward structure. Cooperation is greatly rewarded, but not required. Classes are designed to succeed better in their particular domains of influence than any other.

I can't remember everything, but IMO a good deal of reflection went into creating a well designed game for the AD&D ruleset. I don't agree with every rule or all of its' design intents, but it has enough of the good stuff to get the blood pumping.

 

[Ariosto]

However, if a PC does die, the player starts over at the beginning.

Not necessarily, as one might digest the advice in the DMG. As you observe, though, up to "name" level, it takes about as many XP to reach Level N as to go from N to N+1 (so it's not such a drag as it might be in 3e or 4e).

Every class has a different focus of play, realm of influence, and reward structure. Cooperation is greatly rewarded, but not required. Classes are designed to succeed better in their particular domains of influence than any other.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure Gygax called that out explicitly (perhaps in The Dragon) as a balance he had attempted to design into the game.

"The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are all dictated by [sic] character class (or multi-class)."

Some other perspectives from the PHB:

"Even death loses much of its sting, for often the character can be resurrected, or reincarnated. And should that fail there is always the option to begin again with a new character. Thus [AD&D] is, as are most role playing games, open-ended. There is no 'winner', no final objective, and the campaign grows and changes as it matures."

"Considerable enjoyment and excitement in early play stems from not knowing exactly what is going on. Being uncertain of how a given situation will turn out, not knowing every magic item available, and so forth, adds spice to the game. Later, this knowledge simulates actual experience, for the seasoned campaigner will have learned through game play."

 

[Garmorn]

Thank you. That does help. I still don't believe an RPG should be balanced as a simulation game or a storygame, but I understand the desires by those who want those games for it to be included.

From my perspective, enforced equality in altering the game world means no actions are rewarded with a greater ability to do so. Of course, no actions penalize this ability either. For example, if my Fighter PC has a sword and yours does not, must there be an absolute balance between us if the characters were to battle each other? If so, what's the point of having a sword? In another way, if we find a horde of treasure and decide to give it all to one PC, then shouldn't he or she be more powerful / influential in the game than the rest of us?

You took to far. Note: I said with the same level of wealth. I you have a long sword and I can afford the same or its equivalent for my class. (i.e. what ever my class can use) the we should have the same (equal) affect on a combat that our party is in. If I am a wizard then I should be able to contribute to the battle just like a fighter. I might have to do it differently but I should still be a equal resource to the party.

For the story part we mean in the overall scope of the campaign not from one encounter (combat or not) to the next.